Mamdani želi uhititi Netanyahua ako dođe u New York: "On je ratni zločinac"

Mayor of New York Zohran Mamdani has stated he is considering whether his administration can legally detain Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if the leader attends the United Nations General Assembly in September. The proposal, which Mamdani outlined during a recent interview with The New York Times, reflects his long-standing criticism of Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza, labeling him a “war criminal.” This move comes amid heightened tensions over international law and the role of global institutions in holding leaders accountable. Mamdani, who became the first Muslim mayor of New York in 2023, expressed his views during a segment of the The Interview podcast hosted by the newspaper. He reiterated positions previously taken during his successful campaign for office, including calling Israeli military operations in Gaza “genocide” and referring to Netanyahu as a war criminal. According to Mamdani, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant against Netanyahu for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including “starvation as a method of warfare and killings, persecution, and other inhumane acts.” While Mamdani emphasized that his administration would act within the bounds of New York’s legal framework, he acknowledged uncertainty regarding the city’s authority to order the NYPD to detain a foreign head of government. He noted that his team is engaged in “active discussions” with the city’s legal department to determine the feasibility of such action. “We will do everything the law allows,” he said, adding that they would not create new laws to achieve this goal. The ICC’s arrest warrant against Netanyahu was issued in November 2024, accusing him and other Israeli officials of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity during their operations in Gaza. The charges include allegations of deliberate attacks on civilian populations, targeting medical facilities, and using starvation as a weapon of war. The court’s decision has drawn sharp responses from both Israeli and American officials, with some arguing that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over matters involving state sovereignty. In response to Mamdani’s remarks, Netanyahu dismissed them as politically motivated and accused the mayor of supporting Hamas. During a radio interview, Netanyahu called Mamdani a “terrorist sympathizer,” claiming that the mayor fails to understand or care about the threat posed by groups hostile to Jews and Israelis. He further suggested that Mamdani’s stance could undermine U.S.-Israeli relations, stating that those who oppose Jewish interests ultimately threaten America itself. Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon also criticized Mamdani, accusing him of not doing enough to combat rising anti-Semitism in New York. Danon highlighted the mayor’s efforts to increase funding for the city’s anti-hate initiatives, but he argued that Mamdani’s public statements risk alienating key allies. In contrast, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz described the mayor’s threats as “pure political theater,” noting that the United States is not a member of the ICC and does not recognize its jurisdiction over domestic affairs. Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump, who took office in February 2025, had already imposed economic sanctions on the ICC, asserting that the institution lacked legitimacy and authority over U.S. or Israeli matters. His administration framed the court as an entity that waged a “war on our country,” rather than on individuals or weapons. These policies have continued under current leadership, reinforcing the perception that the ICC’s influence is limited in major Western nations. As the September meeting approaches, diplomatic tensions remain high. While the U.S. and Israel continue to assert their independence from the ICC, the mayor’s bold statement highlights growing concerns among some global actors about accountability for wartime conduct. Whether or not Mamdani’s administration can take legal action remains unclear, but his position underscores a broader debate over the limits of international justice and the responsibilities of municipal governments in addressing human rights violations.