i would be concerned that arresting netanyahu for war crimes, however much you may dislike him, risks trivializing the idea of war crimes.

this court in the hague, whatever you think of it, needs to be used sparingly or not at all. you can't just haul anybody you don't like into the hague and accuse them of war crimes. there has to be an exceedingly high bar that's not being remotely met in gaza.

i will say that netanyahu needs to tone it down in lebanon.

the claim that there's a persistent "high risk of famine", which never materializes, is an exceedingly weak basis for an arrest warrant, especially considering the length that the israelis have actually gone to to feed their enemies. you could criticize them for their policies; israel is a democracy, that's allowed. but, jumping to a war crimes warrant is not justified by the facts.

the attacks in lebanon north of the litani and especially north of  the alawi are much more suggestive of an aggressive rather than a defensive war and harder to justify, although it's still grey. the question is whether israel has exceeded the action that is justified, which is dismantling and destroying hezbollah, and carried out attacks in civilian populations, which is still blurry but increasingly leaning in that direction.

however, lebanon is not a signatory to the rome treaty, either. nor is syria