Israel in Gaza: War Crimes, Self-Defense or Both?

Like most countries, Israel’s political landscape spans a wide spectrum. Some believe that everything Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has done in Gaza is fully justified, while others argue he should have been tried for war crimes months ago.  Those in the middle want to point out that Israel is not the same as the right wing forces in the Israeli government. Some of those Israelis not only want Netanyahu tried, they have been providing the ICC evidence to ensure it leads to a Netanyahu’s conviction.

There are progressive Jews who staunchly support Israel’s right to defend itself and unequivocally condemn Hamas, Hezbollah, and other militant groups. At the same time, they are deeply anguished by the reported loss of over 40,000 Palestinian lives, according to Gaza’s health ministry—figures that Israel disputes—seeing it as conflicting with Jewish principles such as pikuach nefesh (the sanctity of life), “Whoever saves one life saves the world,” and Tikkun Olam, the call to repair the world. Reconciling these values with Israel’s security measures poses a profound challenge—particularly for those who remain deeply committed to a Jewish ethical framework. This struggle highlights the complexity of asymmetric warfare, where threats to national security collide with moral imperatives to preserve civilian life.

The possibility of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu facing an International Criminal Court (ICC) indictment for war crimes has ignited fierce debate within Jewish communities in both Israel and the United States. While some see Netanyahu’s military strategy as essential for Israel’s security, others view the high civilian death toll in Gaza as evidence of potential war crimes.

For those who believe in justice and accountability, an ICC trial represents an opportunity to determine the truth—both about Israel’s military actions and the legal limits of warfare. An ICC trial of Netanyahu could also lead to scrutiny of Hamas’s tactics, as the court may investigate war crimes committed by all parties in the conflict, including Hamas’s killing of Israeli civilians and hostage-taking and the use of human shields.

But for others, such a prosecution could set a dangerous precedent, potentially criminalizing self-defense and undermining Israel’s sovereignty. The question remains: Should Netanyahu be prosecuted, or would such a move do more harm than good?

The Rome Statute, which underpins the ICC, defines war crimes broadly, including deliberate attacks on civilians, disproportionate use of force, and collective punishment. At the heart of this concern is the perception that Netanyahu’s government has sanctioned operations in Gaza that go beyond what is permissible under international humanitarian law.

Evidence suggesting that Israel may have violated the Geneva Conventions or committed war crimes rests in documented incidents of large-scale civilian harm, alleged collective punishment, targeting of civilian infrastructure, and extrajudicial killings—as compiled by UN investigations, human rights groups, and other watchdog entities. Whether these incidents definitively prove war crimes can only be determined by a competent judicial body, after a thorough and impartial legal process.

Ultimately, the question of whether Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza amount to war crimes is not easily answered. Legally, it hinges on a complex interplay of jurisdictional matters, evidentiary standards, and diplomatic factors. Politically, it tests the bonds of solidarity between Israel and its global supporters, who must reconcile love for the Jewish homeland with genuine fears that the government has overstepped in wartime.

Is Israel Safer? And at What Cost?

Many argue that Israel is safer today than before Hamas’s October 7 attack, as Hamas, Hezebalough, Iran, and Syria’s operational capabilities have been significantly weakened. The Israeli military’s extensive campaign in Gaza has significantly weakened Hamas’s operational capabilities and restored deterrence.

But does that mean Netanyahu’s strategy worked and should be applauded? Or does it mean that, while effective, his methods were excessive, reckless, or even criminal?

Supporters argue that Netanyahu’s military strategy was necessary to eliminate a terrorist threat and prevent future massacres. Critics contend that his approach has caused too much unnecessary suffering, with over 40,000 Palestinian deaths reported and entire neighborhoods in Gaza reduced to rubble.

Some believe that without an independent investigation, the full extent of Israel’s actions—and potential violations—will remain unclear. But others worry that any legal action against Netanyahu would be politicized, unfairly singling out Israel while other war zones remain ignored.

Would an ICC Trial Deliver Justice or Delegitimize the Court?

The International Criminal Court was established to hold leaders accountable for war crimes, ensuring that those in power do not act with impunity. But would putting Netanyahu on trial uphold justice—or undermine the credibility of the ICC itself?

Arguments for an ICC Trial:

• Establishing the Truth – Some believe that Israel has not been transparent about the conduct of its military campaign, and an ICC trial could provide a full, independent investigation.
• Holding Leaders Accountable – If Israel violated the Geneva Conventions, Netanyahu must face justice like any other leader.
• Maintaining the ICC’s Authority – If the ICC does not act in this case, it risks being seen as selective in its prosecutions, potentially weakening its legitimacy in future war crimes trials.

Arguments Against an ICC Trial:

• Singling Out Israel – Israel’s supporters argue that many nations engage in wars with high civilian casualties, yet their leaders are not prosecuted.
• Weaponizing International Law – Some fear that the ICC has become a political tool, disproportionately targeting democratic nations while ignoring authoritarian regimes.
• Undermining Israel’s Right to Defend Itself – If an ICC trial criminalizes military actions taken in self-defense, it could set a dangerous precedent for all nations fighting terrorism.

Would an ICC prosecution strengthen the rule of law, or would it weaken the ICC’s credibility by applying a double standard?

The Evidence

Disproportionate Use of Force in Civilian Areas

During multiple operations in Gaza, human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International have documented instances in which large numbers of non-combatants were killed. Reports from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) cite repeated strikes on residential buildings, often resulting in entire families being killed with insufficient warning or means of escape. Some strikes in the densely populated Jabalia refugee camp are another example where the civilian cost outweighs the military gain. Israel’s use of “non-precision” munitions increases the risk of civilian deaths and injury as collateral damage. Despite Israeli directives for civilians to evacuate certain locations, media reports indicate that civilian convoys have still been shelled or bombed. The principle of proportionality in international humanitarian law requires that the anticipated military advantage of an attack not be outweighed by excessive harm to civilians.

Targeting of Civilian Infrastructure

International law prohibits deliberate attacks on civilian objects. Groups such as B’Tselem and Amnesty International contend that the destruction of vital infrastructure—including schools, hospitals, power networks, and even houses of worship—exceeds legitimate military requirements and could constitute war crimes.

Collective Punishment (Blockade and Restrictions)

The blockade of the Gaza Strip—imposed by Israel (and, in part, by Egypt)—has been labeled by some human rights groups and UN bodies as a form of collective punishment. Since collective punishment penalizes an entire population for the acts of a few, it is prohibited under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Critics argue that such restrictions disproportionately harm civilians, who suffer shortages of food, water, and medical supplies.

Unlawful Killings and Extrajudicial Executions

Israel’s policy of “targeted killings,” often via drone strikes or airstrikes, has come under scrutiny. Critics argue that in some cases, these killings may amount to extrajudicial executions if they bypass due legal process or fail to safeguard nearby civilians.

Multiple international organizations report that the number of humanitarian staff, medical personnel, and journalists killed in Gaza during the current Israel–Gaza war is unprecedented. Efforts to establish “safe zones” or corridors for evacuation and humanitarian operations have repeatedly faltered. Incidents in which designated shelters, ambulances, or press-marked vehicles have been hit underscore the lack of effort to protect civilians.

Some of Netanyahu’s critics argue that “Total Victory” was achieved months ago and that the war has continued—along with the captivity of hostages and civilian casualties—due to Netanyahu’s political interests. Critics have suggested that prolonging the war serves Netanyahu’s personal advantage, a claim his supporters strongly reject.

Conclusion

The debate over whether Netanyahu should face trial at the ICC is fraught with legal, political, and moral complexities. On one hand, the sheer scale of civilian casualties, destruction of infrastructure, and potential violations of international law make a strong case for an independent investigation. On the other hand, prosecuting Netanyahu could reinforce perceptions of bias in international law and complicate Israel’s ability to defend itself in future conflicts.

Whether the ICC moves forward or not, the war in Gaza has already raised grave moral and legal questions that the international community cannot ignore. The final verdict—whether in a courtroom or in the court of public opinion—will shape how the world defines justice in the context of modern warfare.