Why South Korea’s President Called Netanyahu a “War Criminal” After the Gaza Aid Flotilla Incident

The incident prompted an urgent discussion inside the South Korean government about both the fate of the detained activists and the broader legal implications.

Why Lee Referenced the ICC Arrest Warrant

During the cabinet meeting addressing the flotilla incident, Lee brought up the legal status of Israel’s prime minister before the International Criminal Court. He asked officials whether Netanyahu had already been recognized as a “war criminal” by the court and suggested reviewing whether South Korea should arrest him if he entered Korean territory.

The remarks were tied directly to a major development in international law: in November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant in connection with alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the Gaza conflict. Judges said there were reasonable grounds to believe the leaders bore criminal responsibility for crimes including the use of starvation as a method of warfare and other acts against civilians.

However, an arrest warrant is not the same as a conviction. It indicates that judges believe there is sufficient evidence to proceed with prosecution, but the allegations must still be tested in court. This distinction is why describing someone as a “war criminal” remains a political characterization rather than a final judicial determination.

What Lee Asked His Cabinet to Review

Reports from the cabinet meeting indicate that Lee asked officials to examine whether South Korea would be obligated—or willing—to execute the ICC warrant if Netanyahu visited the country.

The discussion focused on questions such as:

• Whether South Korea, as a member of the ICC, would be required to arrest a person subject to an ICC warrant.
• What diplomatic consequences such a step would have.
• How the flotilla incident involving Korean nationals should shape Seoul’s response.

No final policy decision was announced. The review was framed as a legal and diplomatic assessment rather than a commitment to arrest Netanyahu.

Why the Comments Are Diplomatically Unusual

Calling a sitting foreign leader a “war criminal” is extremely rare in South Korean diplomacy. Seoul typically avoids direct confrontations with partners, especially countries with which it maintains cooperation in areas such as technology, defense, and trade.

Lee’s comments therefore marked a significant rhetorical escalation. By linking the flotilla incident to the ICC warrant, he effectively raised the possibility—at least in theory—that Israel’s prime minister could face arrest if he visited South Korea.

Such language can strain bilateral relations, potentially leading to diplomatic protests or reduced political trust between the two governments.

Possible Effects on South Korea’s Middle East Diplomacy

The broader implications go beyond relations with Israel.

South Korea has long tried to maintain balanced ties across the Middle East: cooperating economically and technologically with Israel while also cultivating strong relationships with Arab states that supply energy and support Korean business interests.

Lee’s stance could have mixed consequences:

• It may improve South Korea’s image among governments and publics critical of Israel’s conduct in Gaza.
• At the same time, it risks deepening friction with Israel and complicating coordination with allies that support Israel’s position.

This balancing act—between humanitarian concerns, international law, and strategic partnerships—explains why the South Korean government framed the arrest question as a review rather than an immediate policy commitment.

The Key Uncertainty Going Forward

The controversy ultimately centers on what Seoul will actually do if confronted with the situation it discussed.

For now, the government has only initiated a review of the ICC warrant issue. There is no confirmed decision that South Korea would arrest Netanyahu should he enter the country.

Still, the remarks themselves have already had diplomatic consequences, highlighting how a single maritime incident involving activists can quickly escalate into a broader debate about international law, wartime accountability, and geopolitical alignment.