From Israels detention of two Korean activists to their release: Why did Lee refer to Netanyahu as a war criminal?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, center, attends a memorial service on Jan. 28. [REUTERS/YONHAP]

[EXPLAINER] 

 

Two South Korean activists heading to Gaza on a vessel on a humanitarian mission were intercepted and detained by Israeli naval forces in international waters earlier this week, sparking a diplomatic confrontation in a departure from Seoul’s traditionally cautious Middle East policy.

 

At a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday, President Lee Jae Myung did not simply criticize Israel for the maritime seizure. 

 

He demanded the legal basis for the detentions, publicly challenged his own aides and floated the possibility of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

 

The gamble appeared to yield quick results. On Thursday, the Blue House announced that Israel had released both South Korean activists, bypassing standard detention procedures to deport them directly. The activists — Kim Ah-hyun and Kim Dong-hyeon — are expected to arrive in Korea on Friday morning via a third country, a Foreign Ministry spokesperson said. 

 

“The Lee Jae Myung administration expresses strong regret over Israel’s capture of our citizens,” Blue House senior spokesperson Kang Yu-jung said. “However, we commend and welcome the fact that the Israeli side immediately released our citizens.”

 

Seoul’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs had been tracking the situation and proactively notifying Israel — as well as transit countries including Turkey and Italy — about the possibility of Korean nationals attempting to reach Gaza. That groundwork, the official said, is what allowed Israel to act within hours of the interception. Kim Ah-hyun was traveling under a revoked passport; the ministry issued her a travel certificate to ensure she could return. 

 

By turning a localized consular dispute into a public debate over international war crimes, however, Lee has sparked debate over whether Seoul is engineering a strategic shift toward a more active diplomacy or merely blundering into a U.S. alliance minefield. 

 

 

President Lee Jae Myung speaks with his aides during the 22nd Cabinet Meeting at the Blue House in Seoul on May 20. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

What has the president said about Israel?





At Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting, President Lee called Israel’s interception of a third-country vessel in international waters illegal and its treatment of Korean nationals “inhumane.” He said the seizure had no valid legal basis — the ship was not in Israeli waters, and its passengers were on a humanitarian mission, not a military one.

 

“It gives a foreign military absolutely no legal right to abduct them,” he said. “The fact that they violated a domestic travel ban is an internal matter for South Korea to handle.”

 

He then raised the ICC. 

 

The court issued an arrest warrant against Netanyahu in November 2024 — which remains in effect — citing alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including the use of starvation as a method of warfare. When an aide confirmed the warrant’s existence without going further, Lee said “Then he’s a war criminal.” He ordered officials to review whether Seoul, as party to the Rome Statute, should be prepared to enforce it. 


 

This was not his first criticism of Israel.  

 

In April, Lee reposted a video alleging abuse by Israeli forces and compared Israeli wartime conduct to the Holocaust.

 

The video — filmed in the West Bank in September 2024 — had drawn criticism from the White House, which called it “very shocking,” and even the Israeli military acknowledged it was “a serious incident contrary to the military’s values.”

 

Israel’s foreign ministry at the time condemned Lee’s remarks. Seoul’s diplomats moved to contain the fallout, and Foreign Minister Cho Hyun said the misunderstanding had been resolved.

  


 

Korean protesters wearing masks of U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — depicting the leaders behind bars — attend a rally denouncing the U.S. and Israel’s attack on Iran, near the U.S. Embassy in central Seoul on April 29. [AP/YONHAP]

What does an ICC warrant actually mean for Korea?


 

South Korea is a state party to the Rome Statute, and its domestic law sets out specific procedures for cooperating with The Hague-based ICC, applying extradition rules to surrender requests. If Netanyahu were ever to enter South Korean territory, Seoul would face a real legal and political decision — not just a rhetorical one.

 

The Blue House has since tried to downplay the confrontational nature of Lee’s remarks.

 

“The ICC issue is already being publicly discussed in the international community,” spokesperson Kang said. “The president was raising a question on one of these contested issues to emphasize the need to objectively understand the situation.” 

 

The Foreign Ministry didn’t offer much more details. Asked whether Seoul was now reviewing its obligations under the warrant, a spokesperson said there was nothing specific to add at this point.

 

Israel, which signed the Rome Statute but withdrew its signature in 2002 — as did the United States — and is therefore not an ICC member, appeared to mitigate the damage on its side.

 

According to Kang, the Israeli government communicated that it “hopes Korea-Israel relations will not be affected by this matter and will develop further.”

 

A South Korean diplomatic source told the Korea JoongAng Daily on the condition of anonymity that Israel’s muted public reaction stems from Seoul’s current ambiguity. 

 

“Because President Lee only ordered a legal review rather than declaring an outright enforcement policy, South Korea is currently being treated by Israel as just one of many silent nations, minimizing immediate blowback,” the diplomatic source said.

 

 

Korean activists Kim Dong-hyun and Kim Ah-hyun, alongside Korean-American activist Jonathan Victor Lee, pose for a photograph prior to their departure on a humanitarian aid vessel bound for the Gaza Strip in this undated photo. The three activists, representing the South Korean chapter of the Korean Flotilla for a Free Palestine, were later detained by Israeli forces after their vessel was intercepted. [KOREAN FLOTILLA FOR A FREE PALESTINE]

Was this a principled stand — or a political calculation?

  

The two episodes together look less like isolated reactions than a deliberate shift.  

 

Lee came into office last year as South Korea faced growing pressure to act less like a reactive state and more like an active middle power willing to engage global crises on their own terms.  

 

Some Korean analysts have noted that his background as a human rights lawyer shapes how he frames issues of legal accountability and international norms. 

 

Spokesperson Kang echoed this framing, saying that “protecting the safety and sovereignty of our people is the country’s reason for being, which is President Lee’s usual principle and philosophy.”  

 

Sydney Seiler, senior advisor at the Korea Chair of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former U.S. National Security Council official, characterized Lee’s ICC demand as largely symbolic.

 

“Raising this issue feels like an empty threat and somewhat random [since Prime Minister Netanyahu doesn’t have plans to visit Seoul],” Seiler said. 

 

“In the grand scheme of things, South Korea is not a major player in these actions, so it's a bit of a side show,” he said. “While this won’t shake the core of the U.S.-ROK relationship, it certainly leaves many experts in Washington confused as to why President Lee wanted to carve out such a position.” He referred to the acronym for the Republic of Korea. 

 

South Korea’s oil dependence adds another dimension. 

 

South Korea imports 70.7 percent of its crude oil from the Middle East, nearly all of it through the Strait of Hormuz. 

 

Some analysts drew a parallel to 1973, when then President Park Chung Hee publicly criticized Israel during the oil shock — a move widely read as energy diplomacy rather than moral conviction. 

 

In April, Lee’s government dispatched a special envoy to Tehran for Hormuz negotiations and sent presidential chief of staff Kang Hoon-sik to the Middle East and Central Asia to secure oil supplies.  

 

Some foreign policy experts argue that such highly sensitive matters should have been handled behind closed doors.  

 

“While protecting citizens is an absolute duty of the state, these delicate issues should have been discussed in a closed-door session,” the diplomatic source said. “Airing internal legal deliberations about a foreign leader's arrest warrant so openly is bound to create unnecessary diplomatic friction.” 

 


 


What does Washington make of all this?


 

The United States, an ICC non-member state, has gone further than rejecting the warrants.  

 

Under U.S. President Donald Trump, Washington has imposed sanctions on ICC judges and prosecutors involved in the Israel case. Seoul’s willingness to publicly weigh the practical meaning of the same legal mechanism lands awkwardly there.

 

Seiler said the incident will not cripple the core security relationship but adds “another kind of data point” to the Korea-U.S. relations.

 

Domestically, Rep. Song Eon-seog, floor leader of the conservative People Power Party, said the move “could drag South Korean diplomacy into unnecessary international conflicts” and “place a heavy burden on the safety of local residents and Korean businesses overseas.” 

 

Rep. Lee Jun-seok, leader of the minor Reform Party, also argued that Lee’s moral framework was inconsistently applied, asking why the same logic was not extended to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

 

 

Timeline of Korea-Israel relations [LEE JEONG-MIN]

Is Korea’s Middle East policy actually changing?





South Korea’s foreign policy has long operated within a familiar set of priorities — manage North Korea, maintain the U.S. alliance, balance China and avoid unnecessary friction elsewhere. For the most part, Seoul has handled Middle East matters with delicacy, focusing on energy security and trade cooperation.  

 

Seoul signed a free trade agreement with Israel in 2021. 

 

Its broader engagement with the region has long been been built around energy imports, construction contracts and official language calibrated not to offend any major party.

 

Most experts are cautious about reading Wednesday’s cabinet confrontation as a permanent break. 

 

“This does not mean South Korea’s fundamental Middle East policy paradigm is changing,” the diplomatic source said. “Seoul will likely continue its efforts to maintain a careful diplomatic balance between Israel and the Arab world, rather than leaning heavily toward one side.”

 

The argument that a developed South Korea can no longer stay silent on major global crises has circulated in policy circles for years. It holds that Seoul is now expected to act as a bridge between the developed and developing worlds, and that staying quiet on issues like Gaza undermines that role. 

 

Lee appears to have accepted that argument and is giving it a more confrontational edge than his Foreign Ministry is comfortable with.

BY SEO JI-EUN [[email protected]]