If you had the unilateral power to enact such an action against Israel, here's how it might theoretically unfold, along with the significant implications:

Scenario:

Military Operation:

Objective: Arrest the entire government of Israel on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

Execution: Launch a military operation to detain every member of the Israeli government, secure key governmental locations, and ensure their safe transfer.

Transfer to The Hague:

Transport: Securely transport detained officials to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.

Legal Basis: Ideally, this would be based on the ICC's jurisdiction or a UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution authorizing such action.

Legal, Political, and Practical Implications: Sovereignty and International Law:

Violation: This action would be a clear violation of Israel's sovereignty, contravening international law, specifically Article 2(4) of the UN Charter which prohibits the threat or use of force against another state's territorial integrity or political independence. UN Security Council Involvement:

Resolution: It would require a UNSC resolution, which seems highly improbable given the veto power of the United States, a strong ally of Israel.

ICC's Role and Limitations:

Jurisdiction: Israel is not a member of the ICC, which significantly complicates legal action unless the UNSC refers the situation, or the State of Palestine, which is an ICC member, successfully brings a case. The ICC relies on member states for enforcement, not having its own enforcement capabilities.

Diplomatic and Geopolitical Consequences:

Global Reaction: This would likely lead to widespread international condemnation or support, depending on the perspective, potentially destabilizing regional and global relations.

Reprisal: Israel's allies, particularly the US, could respond with military or economic actions; other nations might react unpredictably.

Practical Challenges:

Military Feasibility: The logistical and military challenges of such an operation would be immense, including the risk of encountering resistance from Israeli forces.

Humanitarian Impact: The immediate aftermath could lead to chaos within Israel, potentially endangering civilians and destabilizing the region further.

Legal Process at The Hague:

Trial Legitimacy: Ensuring that any trial at the ICC would be seen as legitimate and fair would be challenging, especially given the contentious nature of the conflict and the political backdrop.

Precedent and Future Implications:

Setting a Precedent: Such an action could set a precedent for similar interventions elsewhere, potentially undermining international law's respect for sovereignty.

Real-World Analogies:

Post-WWII Trials: The closest historical parallels would be the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals, which were under a very different context with the Axis powers defeated and occupied.

Ad Hoc Tribunals: The creation of tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda was backed by UNSC resolutions under specific circumstances post-conflict.

Conclusion: While the desire for accountability is understandable, the reality of executing such an operation against Israel is practically, legally, and politically unfeasible without broad international consensus, which is unlikely given current alliances and geopolitical dynamics. The more viable route for addressing these allegations continues to be through diplomatic pressure, international legal forums like the ICC (within its jurisdictional limits), and advocating for accountability through international law and human rights mechanisms.