Former Human Rights Watch chief Kenneth Roth says only Donald Trump can stop Benjamin Netanyahu and war in Gaza

The former executive director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, says the one man who can hold Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to account and put an end to the war in Gaza is US President Donald Trump.

His comments echoed those of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who last week called for Mr Trump to show real leadership on the ongoing war in Gaza.

During an interview on 7.30, Mr Roth — who is Jewish and the son of a Holocaust survivor — said world leaders must do more than voice outrage at the ongoing situation in Gaza.

"There's increasing movement towards sanctioning Israeli officials who are responsible," Mr Roth told 7.30.

"There's increasing legitimacy of the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court, but frankly, the one person with leverage over Netanyahu is Trump.

"I don't think it's impossible to push Trump to do that. He is breaking with Netanyahu in various ways. He's spoken about that he's not yet at that stage, but it's possible to get him there. 

"That's what it's going to take to end these war crimes."

Mr Roth's comments came after 90,000 protesters walked across the Sydney Harbour Bridge on Sunday, calling for an end to Israel's war in Gaza. 

Mr Roth said public opinion might be enough to force the hand of a populist leader like Donald Trump.

"Trump is not indifferent to public opinion," Mr Roth said. 

Reasons for the shift include images of starving and emaciated children in Gaza being broadcast around the world, while the Israeli government issued multiple denials on the issue.

Netanyahu's 'blatant war crimes'

The allegations of using starvation as a weapon of war have formed part of charges brought against Mr Netanyahu and former minister of defence Yoav Gallant by the International Criminal Court.

Mr Roth, who is also a qualified lawyer, said he believed that nothing would see those charges rescinded.

"Those are blatant war crimes," Mr Roth told 7.30.

"They violate the Geneva Convention requirement that an occupying power allow access to humanitarian aid to a people in need.

"That defines Gaza. 

"The fact that Netanyahu committed this crime … that he stops is not a defence to the months upon months in which he was committing the crime.

Mr Roth believed the establishment of a Palestinian state would face obstacles, such as Hamas, past failures of the Palestinian Authority and Mr Netanyahu's unwillingness to see it happen. 

But he said the United States could play a major role in removing those obstacles. 

"Hamas has said that it would contemplate disarming and leaving Gaza if there were a clear path to a Palestinian state," Mr Roth said.

"If we accept that as a negotiating position, then the main obstacle is Netanyahu, who basically has said, 'over my dead body, there's not going to be a Palestinian state.' 

"It comes back to his enormous leverage. The $3.8 billion in annual aid he gives to Israel and massive flow of arms; if he were to say this only continues if you allow the Palestinian state, that allows us to stop the slaughter in Gaza, things like this can happen."

Antisemitism envoy's approach 'counterproductive'

Mr Roth told 7.30 he considered antisemitism "a real issue" for him and a real "hazard" for Jewish people, but criticised Australia's Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, for selecting a controversial definition of antisemitism to base her work on.

In her recently released report, Ms Segal urged the Australian government to "require consistent application and adoption" of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, calling it the "gold standard" in an interview with 7.30.

Critics, including the definition's lead author, say it is being used to suppress legitimate criticism of Israel's policies.

Mr Roth agreed.

"The IHRA definition undermines the fight against antisemitism because it has come to be used over and over as an excuse to suppress legitimate criticism of Israel."

The risk in the reliance on the IHRA definition, Mr Roth said, was to undermine the fight against antisemitism.

"It cheapens the concept of antisemitism when it's very much needed. It basically prioritises defence of the Israeli government over the defence of Jews around the world," he said.

"I have no problem with having a special envoy focused on fighting antisemitism, but if that envoy is really pushing a definition of antisemitism that amounts to defending and stopping criticism of Israel, that is counterproductive. 

"That is unhelpful for what Jews need to combat a genuine problem."

Watch 7.30, Mondays to Thursdays 7:30pm on ABC iview and ABC TV