The paper, by briefly analyzing the case study of Palestine, attempts to establish that the intervention of ICC, as a Court of last resort that employs the ideals of impartiality and judicial autonomy, was and continues to be a legal necessity in the war-torn Palestine region ill-equipped with required judicial measures and a lack of political will. The paper also attempts to answer whether, in light of the criticism, the presence of ICC in the Palestine continent overweighs its absence in the region and will proceed to shed some light on the peace versus justice debate and its appropriateness in the given context. The purpose of the study is to critically examine such arguments and challenge their validity in light of the impartial operation of the ICC. The study provides a historical overview of the ICC's relationships with Palestine. It then aims to identify the justifications advanced by various parties for the ICC's perceived bias against Palestine and seeks to assess whether these justifications are valid objectively. The methodology adopted for the present study is doctrinal and critical inquiry. The researcher has also taken recourse to various primary and secondary sources such as Case laws, Books on particular subject matter, Peer/blind reviewed journal articles, Reports of various Palestinen Commissions, News articles etc. have been used in order to study, analyze and to identify various issues, criticisms and problems that pertain to this area of interest. The case laws and a bunch of articles have been referred to in order to understand ICC’s response to such claims and criticisms.