In theory, yes. In practice ICC would have to reach an extremely high burden of proof. Even if it had full evidence of crimes against humanity (which obviously it won't... if anything Israel's haters will hang on some technicality rather than actual evidence which can be used in a real court).
ICC is established as the court of last resort. So despite what some on this site may wish to believe, if a country has a robust legal system which is independent of the government, the ICC has no jurisdiction by design. Obviously, it's not enough to simply claim to have such a system. Otherwise, everyone accused by the ICC would make such claims. But as part of any court case, a court has to have reasons for claiming jurisdiction and has to be able to state those reason.
Here's Article 17 of the Rome Statute, (the statute which gives ICC its authority):
Article 17
Issues of admissibility
- Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is
inadmissible where:
(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State
is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not
to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of
the State genuinely to prosecute;
(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and
a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;
(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court
Given that the evidence for Israel's Supreme Court's independence is very clear. There was, after all, an extremely visible and unequivocal civil unrest in Israel, with significant part of the population taking part in the protests, specifically because the government wished to reduced the court's independence, it would be incredibly difficult for ICC to justify claiming that Israel's court is not independent. And short of making such a claim, ICC cannot assert jurisdiction if Israel's Supreme Court declines to prosecute whatever Netanyahu is accused of.
The same high burden does not exist with respect to Russia. No one believes that Russian courts are independent of the government. And ICC, as any court, has to make an informed judgement. If it makes a judgement which is not credible, it's not likely to be enforced. And by making a judgement which is not near-universally recognized as sound, it can undermine its own institutional legitimacy.
The confusion may arise from the words "court of last resort" being used in the Rome Statute (as quoted above). The SCOTUS is sometimes referred to as "the court of last resort" because it is the court of last appeal. But ICC is explicitly not the court of last appeal. If a sovereign jurisprudence is capable and willing to consider a case (independently of state interference), the Rome Statue explicitly removes the jurisdiction from the ICC.
This difference in the meaning of the term "court of last resort" is sometimes described by calling the ICC "complementary" to sovereign jurisprudence when a sovereign jurisprudence is effectively too inept (and only then).
