The Long Way To New York: Netanyahu’s Strategic Detour & Mamdani’s Dangerous Fantasy

Editor’s Note:

As Israel faces intensifying international legal challenges and complex diplomatic pressures, political rhetoric in the United States is becoming increasingly adversarial — even from those vying for New York City’s highest office. This article examines Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s calculated flight detour to the United Nations and the legally questionable, ideologically driven threats made by mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. For the Jewish community, the stakes are not merely geopolitical — they are deeply local.

SIDEBAR: What Is Wing of Zion?

Wing of Zion (Knaf Zion in Hebrew) is the official aircraft of the State of Israel, commissioned in 2023 to serve the prime minister, president, and senior officials on diplomatic missions. Comparable to the U.S. Air Force One, the Boeing 767-300ER was retrofitted with advanced communications systems, missile defense capabilities, and a secure command center to allow leaders to manage state affairs mid‑flight. The aircraft, emblazoned with the Israeli flag and the words “State of Israel,” symbolizes the nation’s sovereignty and global reach — and has become a powerful tool of Israeli diplomacy, enabling secure, long‑distance travel even under complex geopolitical conditions.

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boarded Wing of Zion for his annual United Nations address — a trip whose flight plan would soon draw global attention — few expected the route itself to become an international headline. Instead of following the usual direct path across continental Europe, Netanyahu’s plane deliberately altered course — passing over Greece and Italy, skirting the Mediterranean coastline, and avoiding France and Spain before crossing the Strait of Gibraltar en route to New York. The detour, which added roughly two hours to the flight, was no logistical accident. It was a calculated move shaped by legal risk, diplomatic realities, and geopolitical caution.

Since November 2024, Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant have been subject to arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), accusing them of war crimes — including the deliberate targeting of civilians and the use of starvation as a weapon during the Gaza conflict. Although neither Israel nor the United States is a party to the ICC, more than 120 countries are signatories to the Rome Statute, obligating them to arrest individuals subject to ICC warrants if they enter their jurisdiction. While merely overflying a state’s airspace does not trigger enforcement, unforeseen emergencies — such as mechanical failures, medical incidents, or weather diversions — could force an unexpected landing. Israeli planners therefore decided to minimize the risk by avoiding the airspace of countries likely to comply with ICC enforcement.

The danger is far from hypothetical. The Netherlands has publicly declared it would arrest Netanyahu if he landed there. Switzerland reaffirmed its commitment to ICC enforcement, and Slovenia went so far as to designate Netanyahu persona non grata on September 25, 2025 — just days before his departure. Even France, typically a routine waypoint, introduced uncertainty by suggesting “possible immunities” without providing assurances — a position widely criticized by human rights advocates as inconsistent with ICC principles. In this context, the rerouting decision was not an overreaction but a prudent and necessary safeguard.

While Israeli officials were navigating this complex legal environment, a very different controversy was unfolding in the United States. State Assembly Member Zohran Mamdani — a progressive mayoral candidate known for his deeply anti-Israel positions — declared that, if elected, he would instruct the NYPD to arrest Netanyahu upon arrival. “If Benjamin Netanyahu steps foot in New York, he should be arrested for war crimes — and if I’m mayor, the NYPD will do it,” Mamdani said at a campaign rally, according to media reports. He also told The New York Times: “This is a moment where we cannot look to the federal government for leadership. This is a moment when cities and states will have to demonstrate what it actually looks like to stand up for our own values, our own people. It is my desire to ensure that this be a city that stands up for international law.”

This rhetoric, coming amid heightened global scrutiny of Israel’s leadership, resonated strongly in activist circles and political debates. The statement quickly gained traction online, galvanizing anti-Israel activists while alarming constitutional scholars and Jewish leaders. Yet Mamdani’s proposal is legally impossible. The United States has never ratified the Rome Statute, and no federal law grants municipal law enforcement the authority to execute ICC warrants. Foreign policy and international law are reserved exclusively for the federal government, and longstanding precedent affirms that heads of state and government enjoy broad immunity during official visits. As Columbia Law professor Matthew C. Waxman explained, “This isn’t even a close call. In my mind, this statement is more a political stunt than a serious law‑enforcement policy.” Netanyahu himself dismissed the threat as “silly,” saying, “There’s enough craziness in the world… this is a folly, it’s silly in many ways,” and affirmed that it would not deter him from attending the UN session.

Mamdani’s rhetoric reflects a broader ideological worldview that has reshaped his political identity, aligning him with a wing of the progressive movement that frequently adopts anti-Zionist positions and seeks to reframe U.S. foreign policy through a lens of social justice and decolonization. While his positions have energized a small base of far-left activists, they have simultaneously alienated moderates and mainstream Democrats. He has repeatedly challenged established discourse — refusing to affirm Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and instead arguing that “the solution is one state with equal rights for all — not a Jewish state.” He has declined to condemn the slogan “Globalize the Intifada,” claiming it “speaks to shared struggles against oppression.” And he has accused New York City of complicity in atrocities, stating, “Our city should not be complicit in genocide. We must stand with international law and human rights, even if Washington refuses.” These remarks have cemented Mamdani’s reputation as a polarizing figure and intensified debates about his fitness for office.

The response from Jewish organizations, mainstream Democrats, and other public officials has been swift. New York Governor Kathy Hochul called Mamdani’s statement “reckless and deeply irresponsible,” warning that “local leaders have no authority to conduct foreign policy, let alone interfere with international diplomacy.” Former NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio likewise condemned the remarks as “an embarrassment to the city and a distraction from real issues.” ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt criticized Mamdani’s outreach: “This candidate has visited churches and mosques, not a single synagogue… [and] has not met any mainstream Jewish leaders in a public forum.” Mamdani replied, “I think there are far better representations of the concerns of Jewish New Yorkers than the ADL and Jonathan Greenblatt.” In Congress, Representative Elise Stefanik introduced legislation designed to prevent local jurisdictions from acting on ICC warrants against foreign leaders — a direct response to Mamdani’s remarks.

For Jewish communities in Queens and beyond, this controversy is far more than a rhetorical dispute. It marks a potential turning point in how future city administrations approach Jewish communal life, Israel policy, and interfaith relations. Should Mamdani’s worldview guide City Hall, it could significantly influence policing priorities, international partnerships, and municipal responses to anti-Israel activism. Moreover, the debate may shape national discourse on Israel and recalibrate voter coalitions in future elections.

The contrast between Netanyahu and Mamdani illustrates two fundamentally different approaches to governance and foreign policy. Netanyahu’s decision to reroute his flight demonstrates a pragmatic, risk‑aware response to evolving international legal dynamics. Mamdani’s confrontational rhetoric, by contrast, represents a performative attempt to politicize foreign policy at the municipal level — one that prioritizes ideological signaling over legal and diplomatic realities. One approach is grounded in strategic calculation and diplomatic prudence. The other is rooted in populism and provocation — and its consequences could shape the trajectory of U.S.–Israel relations and redefine New York City politics for years to come. If Mamdani’s worldview were to shape city policy, it could lead to shifts in law enforcement priorities, strained intergovernmental relations, and the erosion of cooperative programs with Israeli institutions — developments that would reverberate far beyond City Hall, potentially influencing congressional debates, shaping U.S. foreign aid policy, and emboldening international actors seeking to isolate Israel on the global stage.

 By Shabsie Saphirstein