New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has reignited global debate over whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can be arrested on an International Criminal Court warrant, admitting his city lacks the legal authority to detain Netanyahu and instead urging US federal officials to act. The exchange has renewed questions about which countries, including in Europe, would actually enforce the warrant if Netanyahu landed on their soil.
Background
The ICC issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu in November 2024, accusing him of war crimes tied to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack. The warrant also named former Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant. Israel has consistently rejected the ICC’s jurisdiction and denies the allegations.
Mamdani had pledged during his mayoral campaign that New York City would arrest Netanyahu if he visited, framing it as a matter of upholding international law. That promise came under fresh scrutiny this week after Mamdani acknowledged in a video posted online that his administration does not have the independent legal authority to execute the ICC’s warrant on its own.
Instead, Mamdani called on federal officials to act if Netanyahu is in the city, while reiterating his own characterization of the Israeli leader as a “war criminal” responsible for what he described as a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Netanyahu’s office dismissed the ICC warrant as “bogus” and called the court a “kangaroo court” with no jurisdiction over Israelis or Americans.
Details
Whether Netanyahu can travel to Europe without legal risk depends heavily on which country he visits. The ICC has 124 member states obligated under the Rome Statute to arrest anyone subject to a court warrant who enters their territory, and that list includes all 27 European Union states.
In practice, enforcement has been inconsistent. Hungary, an ICC member, publicly invited Netanyahu and refused to enforce the warrant when he visited Budapest in 2026, drawing criticism from human rights groups. The Czech Republic, Argentina, and Romania have also signaled they would not detain him.
Other European countries have taken a more cautious stance without fully committing either way. France and Italy have suggested Netanyahu may hold immunity as the leader of a state not party to the ICC, a legal argument the court itself has rejected. Germany has said any decision would only be made if Netanyahu’s presence there became clearly foreseeable, calling arrest under current circumstances difficult to imagine given Germany’s historical relationship with Israel.
A smaller group of European states, including Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland, Slovenia, and Spain, have given the clearest indications that they would move to arrest Netanyahu under the warrant if he set foot on their territory. The Netherlands’ foreign minister has said the country implements the Rome Statute fully, and Dutch officials previously canceled a planned visit to Israel after the warrant was issued.
The uncertainty has already shaped Netanyahu’s travel routes. His office confirmed his flight path to Washington earlier in his term had to avoid certain European airspace due to the warrant, even though the United States itself is not an ICC member and does not enforce its rulings domestically.
Quotes
Mamdani, addressing the arrest question directly, said his administration had reviewed every legal avenue available and concluded the city could not independently execute the ICC’s warrant, adding that Netanyahu remained unwelcome in New York regardless of the legal outcome.
Netanyahu’s office responded sharply, stating on social media that the ICC had no jurisdiction over Israelis or Americans and describing the warrant against the prime minister as issued by a “disgraced” former prosecutor.
Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, dismissed Mamdani’s position entirely, saying the mayor had no jurisdiction to act on the matter and suggesting the comments were more about domestic politics than international law.
CNN legal analyst Elie Honig, discussing the legal mechanics of the case, noted that the warrant carries no direct legal weight in the United States since Washington never signed onto the Rome Statute, meaning local officials like Mamdani have no authority to act on it regardless of their personal position.
Impact
The dispute highlights a deeper split in how Western governments are handling the ICC warrant more broadly. Rather than producing a uniform travel ban, the warrant has created a patchwork of enforcement, with some countries treating Netanyahu as untouchable and others quietly signaling he would face arrest.
For Netanyahu personally, the practical impact has been a narrowing of his travel options and longer, more complicated flight routes to avoid European airspace controlled by countries likely to enforce the warrant. Russian President Vladimir Putin has faced a similar squeeze on his own international travel since receiving an ICC warrant of his own.
The Mamdani episode also puts pressure on the incoming UN General Assembly session in New York this September, an event Netanyahu has historically attended in person. His planned attendance now sits at the center of a political standoff between city officials, the Trump administration, and Israel’s government over how, or whether, the warrant should be enforced on US soil.
Conclusion
With Netanyahu expected to attend the UN General Assembly in New York later this year, the debate over enforcement is unlikely to fade. Much will depend on whether the Trump administration takes any position on the ICC warrant, and whether European governments harden or soften their individual stances as more invitations and diplomatic visits come up on Netanyahu’s calendar.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which countries have a warrant for Netanyahu?
The arrest warrant against Netanyahu was issued by the International Criminal Court, based in The Hague, rather than by any individual country. However, all 124 member states of the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, are technically obligated to arrest him if he enters their territory, and this list includes the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and most of the European Union. In practice, enforcement varies significantly by country, with states like the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, and Spain signaling willingness to act on the warrant, while others such as Hungary, Argentina, and the Czech Republic have said they would not detain him despite their formal treaty obligations.
Is Netanyahu going to be prosecuted?
Whether Netanyahu will actually face prosecution depends entirely on whether he is physically taken into ICC custody, since the court cannot conduct a trial in absentia for this type of case and has no independent police force of its own to make arrests. Because Israel is not a member of the ICC and does not recognize its jurisdiction, Netanyahu has continued to travel and govern despite the outstanding warrant, and any prosecution would require a member state to detain him during an international visit. Given the current political divisions among ICC member states over enforcement, near-term prosecution appears unlikely unless Netanyahu travels to one of the countries that has clearly committed to acting on the warrant.
Can a country refuse to cooperate with the ICC?
Technically, member states that have ratified the Rome Statute are legally bound to cooperate with ICC arrest warrants, but the court has no independent enforcement mechanism of its own and relies entirely on national governments to carry out arrests. This has allowed some countries, including Hungary and Jordan in past cases involving other ICC warrants, to simply decline to act without facing significant consequences beyond diplomatic criticism from human rights organizations and other member states. Because the ICC depends on voluntary compliance and has limited tools to penalize non-cooperation beyond referring the matter to the Assembly of States Parties, enforcement in practice often comes down to a country’s political relationship with the individual named in the warrant rather than strict legal obligation.
