Why Zohran Mamdani Can’t Arrest Benjamin Netanyahu and the Shift in Democratic Support for Israel

Zohran Mamdani, a New York City mayoral candidate, admitted on Tuesday that he lacks the legal authority to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his visit to the United States, retracting a campaign promise he made in 2023. The revelation comes amid broader shifts in Democratic Party attitudes toward Israel, as younger and progressive Democrats increasingly criticize the Israeli government’s actions in the Gaza Strip.

Mamdani’s pledge to arrest Netanyahu, made during his 2023 campaign, was widely seen as a symbolic stand against Israeli policies, particularly following the October 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas and Israel’s subsequent military response. However, legal experts had long questioned the feasibility of the promise. On Tuesday, Mamdani acknowledged in a video statement that New York City police do not have the power to detain a foreign dignitary on U.S. soil, even if the International Criminal Court (ICC) had issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu.

The ICC, which 125 countries recognize, issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu in November 2024 on charges including war crimes and crimes against humanity. The court accused him of orchestrating attacks that caused civilian casualties and deliberately inflicting starvation in Gaza. However, the United States does not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction, and the responsibility for executing international arrest warrants typically falls to federal authorities, not local law enforcement.

Hamid Bendaas, a researcher at the Institute for Middle East Understanding, a pro-Palestinian advocacy group, noted that Mamdani’s statement reflected a broader political calculus. “The principle of denouncing Israel’s actions matters, even if enforcement is impossible,” Bendaas said. “But there’s also a political dimension—critiquing Israel has become a way for Democrats to signal alignment with younger, more progressive voters.”

The shift in Democratic Party sentiment toward Israel has accelerated in recent years. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2024 found that 56% of Democrats under 30 viewed Israel’s actions in Gaza as “extremely or somewhat problematic,” compared to 28% of Democrats over 65. This generational divide has intensified as some moderate Democrats have grown skeptical of Israel’s policies, particularly after the 2024 Gaza famine, which humanitarian organizations linked to Israeli restrictions on aid.

The political realignment has also been influenced by the return of former President Donald Trump, who has maintained close ties with Netanyahu. Trump’s 2024 campaign emphasized a hardline stance on Iran and a strong U.S.-Israel alliance, further distancing some Democrats from traditional pro-Israel lobbying groups. “Israel’s image has become more GOP-coded,” said Bendaas. “This isn’t just about policy—it’s about identity and messaging.”

Mamdani’s retraction highlights the challenges of balancing symbolic gestures with legal reality. While he maintained that his focus was on “holding leaders accountable,” critics argued the promise was never practical. “It was a political stunt,” said a spokesperson for the New York City Bar Association, which declined to comment on the legal specifics of the case.

The episode underscores deeper tensions within the Democratic Party as it navigates shifting voter priorities. While some progressive lawmakers continue to advocate for Palestinian rights, others warn against alienating Israel, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East. The party’s 2024 platform emphasized “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East,” but did not explicitly critique Israel’s military actions.

As the 2025 New York City mayoral race approaches, Mamdani’s admission may influence how candidates frame their positions on foreign policy. For now, the focus remains on the legal and political implications of his statement, as well as the broader debate over how U.S. politicians should address human rights concerns in conflict zones.

Subheading
The ICC Warrant and U.S. Legal Limits

The International Criminal Court’s 2024 arrest warrant for Netanyahu marked a rare step in international law, but its practical impact in the U.S. remains limited. The ICC, which operates independently of the United Nations, requires member states to cooperate with its investigations. However, the U.S. has not ratified the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, and has consistently rejected its jurisdiction.

Legal scholars have debated whether the U.S. could unilaterally arrest a foreign leader under domestic law. Professor Sarah Cleveland, a constitutional law expert at Yale Law School, noted that federal agencies, not local police, would handle such cases. “New York City has no authority to detain a sitting prime minister,” Cleveland said. “Even if the ICC had jurisdiction, the U.S. would need to pass legislation to comply.”

Subheading
A Generational Shift in Democratic Priorities

The Democratic Party’s evolving stance on Israel reflects broader demographic changes. Younger voters, particularly those under 35, have shown greater support for Palestinian statehood and criticism of Israel’s military operations. This shift has been driven by social media activism, student-led protests, and increased coverage of humanitarian crises in Gaza.

According to a 2024 report by the Pew Research Center, a significant majority of Democrats under 30 viewed Israel’s actions in Gaza as “extremely problematic,” compared to a smaller portion of Democrats over 65. The report also found that a significant portion of young Democrats supported imposing sanctions on Israel, a stark contrast to the party’s traditional pro-Israel advocacy.

Subheading
The Role of Trump and GOP Messaging

The return of Donald Trump has further complicated the political landscape. Trump’s 2024 campaign emphasized a strong alliance with Israel, framing it as a strategic partner in countering Iran and Hamas. His administration’s policies, including the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, bolstered support among conservative voters.

This alignment has led some Democrats to distance themselves from Israel, particularly in urban areas with large progressive populations. “Trump’s rhetoric has made Israel a more polarizing issue,” said Bendaas. “It’s no longer just about policy—it’s about which side of the ideological divide you’re on.”

Subheading
What Comes Next for Mamdani and the Democratic Party?

Mamdani’s admission may not end the debate over Israel policy, but it signals the challenges of translating activism into action. As the 2025 mayoral race unfolds, candidates will likely face pressure to define their positions on foreign policy and human rights.

For the Democratic Party, the tension between progressive ideals and traditional alliances with Israel will remain a defining issue. Whether this shift is temporary or permanent, the political calculus of supporting Israel has become increasingly complex, reflecting broader changes in American public opinion.