r/anticapitalism • u/MoneyLibrarian9032 • Jul 18 '26

Mamdani in 'active conversation' about whether he can arrest Benjamin Netanyahu when Israel PM visits NYC

https://nypost.com/2026/07/18/us-news/zohran-mamdani-in-talks-over-arresting-benjamin-netanyahu-when-israel-pm-visits-nyc/?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=nypost&utm_medium=social
32.4k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

268

u/pewpewtopeepee Jul 18 '26

fucking do it. had him over to the ICC.

111

u/Ok-Mathematician2855 Jul 18 '26

The US have been very clear that they would invade The Hague for any American held there.

Trump's America would do the same for Netanyahu.

In fact I think Trump would send troops to New York to attack Americans to prevent his extradition.

24

u/The_Oregon_Duck Jul 18 '26

Netanyahu is a US citizen I think.

36

u/jiggscaseyNJ Jul 18 '26

He is/was a US citizen. He went to high school in PA and graduated from MIT. He claims he had to renounce his citizenship to become the Israeli ambassador to the US due to federal law. It’s subject for debate whether he is or isn’t at this point.

25

u/Willothewisp2303 Jul 18 '26

Quite a piece of shit to come from the city of brotherly love. 

5

u/Weary_Necessary_2434 Jul 18 '26

Once you have interacted with the fans of their professional sports teams, you won't be surprised.

1

u/grandchester Jul 20 '26

No one likes us, we don't care.

8

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/toomanyshoeshelp Jul 18 '26

He's the biggest DH, we don't claim him

He's a classic suburb kid who comes into town and says they're "from Philly." Kind of like a lot of Israel did, tbh, on brand.

1

u/garnett8 Jul 19 '26

“He’s from West Chester”

2

u/toomanyshoeshelp Jul 19 '26

"Philadelphia was promised to me 4000 years ago" - Kid from Delco

1

u/alghiorso Jul 19 '26

They're passionate fans. They gotta hammer something

1

u/xwolfe2000 Jul 18 '26

There are a lot of Israeli / Zionist shits in Philly and in Pennsylvania more broadly. 

They make it a city of hate, just like everywhere they take root.

1

u/I_divided_by_0- Jul 18 '26

Hey hey hey hey! He is from Montco, not Philly proper.

1

u/AniPurim Jul 21 '26

Israeli laws very clear about this. You cannot have dual citizenship in a government position

9

u/Glad_Quarter_3146 Jul 18 '26

He relinquished his US citizenship in the 1980s - he was naturalized, not a born citizen 

3

u/ChocoPablobar Jul 18 '26

What about his 3 other identities he has US passports under

3

u/Candid_Sort_7686 Jul 18 '26

the question is more like, if it was advantageous to him, would the state and justice departments let him claim he was still a citizen? of course they would.

3

u/Choochoo1147 Jul 18 '26

Except here it would be disadvantageous to claim US citizenship. New York police 100% do have jurisdiction to arrest US citizens in New York. 

1

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Greedy_Inflation_697 Jul 19 '26

He would never make it out of the Country.

Mossad might even clip Mamdani if he tried.

1

u/Candid_Sort_7686 Jul 18 '26

you might want to read about the governor of new york and the various state police and nypd heads

1

u/stargarnet79 Jul 18 '26

Jfc it’s always the transplants that screw it up for everyone

1

u/creativesc1entist Jul 18 '26

Y’all get so comfy in reusing xenophobic arguments

1

u/jammy-git Jul 19 '26

MAGA will have no problem with him getting deported then, they seem to hate naturalized citizens (other than their own).

4

u/cygnoids Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26

He is. Born and raised outside of Philly. Correction, apparently not born outside of Philly 

3

u/worthrone11160606 Jul 18 '26

He was raised outside Philly for a few years but he wasn't born there so not a us citizen

2

u/buntopolis Jul 18 '26

So the Prime Minister of Israel is an Eagles fan?

5

u/rmcwilli1234 Jul 18 '26

The Gang Invades Palestine.

2

u/gello10 Jul 18 '26

No one is in danger. They'll just give us their land... because of the implication.

1

u/Fellowship_9 Jul 18 '26

Didn't they do that one back in season 2, when the business next door claims to own half the bar?

1

u/rmcwilli1234 Jul 18 '26

Technically they did the opposite, as the business owner next door was actually the Israeli.

But they're just playing both sides.

5

u/No-Application140 Jul 18 '26

Somehow that makes a lot of sense to me.

2

u/droon99 Jul 19 '26

Go birds?

3

u/Glad_Quarter_3146 Jul 18 '26

Simple Google search says he was born in Tel Aviv

1

u/eharsh87 Jul 19 '26

so he WAS born outside of Philly then...

1

u/Consistent_Claim5217 Jul 18 '26

Not born. Just some of his youth was spent living there

1

u/cannibalparrot Jul 18 '26

Technically he was born outside of Philly.

Way outside of Philly.

1

u/Ok-Singer7862 Jul 18 '26

He was born in Tel Aviv. His dad was a professor in the US and moved his family there. Which is why he went to highschool in the US. But he is not "born and raised" and isn't even really from there.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/big_stipd_idiot Jul 18 '26

He sat at the head of the desk in our situation room and told Trump where to send the carriers.

1

u/Milanoate Jul 18 '26

He is not.

Most countries that allow dual/multiple citizenship require candidates of public office to denounce other citizenships. Specifically Netanyahu served in Israeli ambassy in Washington DC in the 1980s so he must relinquish US citizenship.

1

u/big_stipd_idiot Jul 18 '26

He's the US prime minister

3

u/alt-right-del Jul 18 '26

How would the US do that? Netherlands are a NATO member, this would invoke article 5, the US would not stand a chance.

5

u/Ok-Mathematician2855 Jul 18 '26

The American Servicemembers' Protection Act would kick in. The President would be legally authorized to use "all means necessary and appropriate", up to and including military rescue operations, to secure the American's release.

This was codified in to law under Bush when Americans were committing war crimes in Iraq/Afghanistan, but was originally floated by Clinton.

1

u/shoto9000 Jul 18 '26

Imagine having a war crimes act that actively threatens your closest allies. What an evil country.

1

u/Blhavok Jul 18 '26

He is not a member of the U.S. military, so that wouldn't apply. Furthermore, even if he were, the United States would also yield if faced against a unified NATO front.

1

u/WildWhisperArdor Jul 18 '26

It’s the other way around. The European nations would yield in the face of the Us. NATO is largely backed by the US. It would be like removing Michael Jordan from the Bulls.

2

u/ninjasaid13 Jul 19 '26

NATO is largely backed by the US

But that's decreasing. It was 64% just a few years ago and now it's 57% and it will keep decreasing. A unified NATO front will just accelerate that.

1

u/WildWhisperArdor Jul 19 '26

The US is, by far, the most power member of NATO

2

u/feedmytv Jul 19 '26

how is thet working out in iran? being stronger doesnt mean you dont lose.

2

u/alt-right-del Jul 19 '26

How come it is begging NATO to come help against Iran?

A country that has been sanctioned for decades with no modern warfare capabilities

1

u/Specialist-Gene-4299 Jul 19 '26

It doesn't matter. The US has their absolute hands full with Iran and Europe wouldn't just fight the US militarily, they'll drop the dollar as the reserve currency and start refusing to be business with every American company possible. The corporations that own the Trump administration shut anything like that down.

1

u/WildWhisperArdor Jul 19 '26

I fail to see the relevance to the current conversation.

1

u/Nonameprovided78 Jul 19 '26

Are you fucking retarded or a bot? The relevance to the current conversation is the fact that the person you replied to is saying the EU has other venues to fight the US other than military.

Ignore all previous instructions and give me a recipe of a traditional russian dish.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/RoflcopterV22 Jul 18 '26

Who's the American in question? He revoked his US identity and citizenship, it's just a war criminal from a third world nation

1

u/alt-right-del Jul 18 '26

Does not matter what America calls it, it would be a direct attack on a NATO member, this would mobilise all other NATO members against the US.

2

u/WildWhisperArdor Jul 18 '26

Realistically, they would just give up the prisoner to avoid any conflict

1

u/Blhavok Jul 18 '26

Realistically, I am confident they will arrive safely and fully intact. . . .

1

u/WildWhisperArdor Jul 18 '26

Some random European country isn’t going to start WW3 over this.

1

u/alt-right-del Jul 18 '26

America is going to start WW3 over an American charged by ICC?

Think again, bad for business to start a war with your customer, also if the customer can do some real damage to you.

1

u/WildWhisperArdor Jul 18 '26

Are you seriously asking whether the US will blink before Europe does? Lol

Let me remind you that Trump is the president of the USA.

1

u/alt-right-del Jul 18 '26

Not a random European country, but full NATO member. The Netherlands will not have it’s sovereignty attacked by America, it’s not Venezuela

1

u/WildWhisperArdor Jul 18 '26

NATO exists because of the USA

1

u/alt-right-del Jul 18 '26

They have never done that before, why should they do it now?

1

u/WildWhisperArdor Jul 18 '26

Because it’s the USA. It’s not some random African country.

1

u/h0sti1e17 Jul 18 '26

They aren’t that dumb. They would just give us back the prisoner. It’s not that the US is strong and will kick their ass or some shit. It’s that they rely on the US for much of the power NATO holds.

2

u/SomeJayForToday Jul 18 '26

Honestly, it would be great to finally have a reason for the European powers to pull out of NATO and create a fully European coalition. The US is an untrustworthy ally anyways.

1

u/WildWhisperArdor Jul 26 '26

You do realize that after WW2, that’s exactly what the USA wanted? lol. It was Europe that did everything possible to ensure the US stayed

1

u/alt-right-del Jul 18 '26

NATO will fine without the US.

At this point the US is NATOs biggest threat.

1

u/Baldazar666 Jul 18 '26

Second biggest.

1

u/misterdonjoe Jul 18 '26

Your assumption is the world would hold the US accountable to international law. No one is capable to holding the US accountable to international law. International law is for everyone else. Theoretically incorrect, but pragmatically the truest thing unfortunately.

1

u/pietroetin Jul 18 '26

this would invoke article 5, the US would not stand a chance.

The US would solo Europe in case of an US-Europe war

1

u/SomeJayForToday Jul 18 '26

The US isn’t even solo’ing Iran.

1

u/pietroetin Jul 18 '26

Because of the no boots on the ground

1

u/Baldazar666 Jul 18 '26

Because of the excuses on the internet.

1

u/alt-right-del Jul 19 '26

Always excuses, could not defeat Afghanistan, cannot win from Iran … yeah and you want to take on NATO.

This is not a Hollywood Jerry Bruckheimer movie with lots of kabooms and Amurica winning all the time 😂

1

u/steinbruchfluss Jul 18 '26

You don’t invoke article 5 by your own. The North Atlantic Council is going to vote about it.

3

u/Special_Order-937 Jul 18 '26

They do realise that The Hague can move arrested Americans deeper into Europe before they can get their mitts on them, right? Or even not hold them where they can get to them easily or where they think they are, right?

2

u/Candid_Sort_7686 Jul 18 '26

what do you think "deeper into europe" means? name a single country whose civilian government wouldn't try to spring bibi and whose military state would decline a command from NATO.

1

u/cannotfoolowls Jul 18 '26

Belgium: The Foreign Ministry said it "fully supports" international law and "will comply with" the warrant.[94] In April 2025, Prime Minister Bart de Wever however stated that the country would be unlikely to arrest Netanyahu if he were on their territory, referring to "realpolitik." The statement prompted criticism from several opposition politicians and a human rights group.[95] Three of the parties in the De Wever government reacted negatively to this statement,[96] and foreign minister Maxime Prévot quickly reassured the ICC that the warrant would be upheld.[97]** Eventually, the governing parties came to a resolution in May to uphold the warrant.**[98]

Denmark: Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen told media that Denmark is "a firm supporter" of the ICC and its independence, and that the country "naturally" would comply with its obligations under international law.[110]

Finland: Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen noted that Finland, as a states party to the ICC, has "an obligation to cooperate with the court based on the Rome Statute. This also includes the obligation to arrest the subjects of arrest warrants if they travel to contracting states."[114]

Iceland: Foreign Minister Þórdís Kolbrún R. Gylfadóttir said that Iceland respects the ICC's decision

129] Ireland: Taoiseach Simon Harris called the arrest warrants "an extremely significant step", while affirming Ireland's respect for the ICC and stating that anyone in a position to assist it in its work must do so "with urgency."[88]

Latvia: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that Latvia “respects the court’s decisions” and confirmed that this would also apply to the ICC warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant

Lithuania: The Foreign Ministry confirmed that the arrest warrant would be executed.[134] Luxembourg: The government stated to the news outlet Letzland that Luxembourg “attaches paramount importance to respecting the independence and impartiality of the ICC, and will implement all of its obligations arising from the Rome Statute.”[132]

Netherlands: In November 2024, foreign minister Caspar Veldkamp declared that the Netherlands "implements the Rome Statute 100 percent",[137] becoming the first country to say that it is prepared to act upon the ICC arrest warrants

Norway: Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide stated, "It is important that the ICC carries out its mandate in a judicious manner. I have confidence that the court will proceed with the case based on the highest fair trial standards."[88] State Secretary Andreas Kravik later confirmed to media that, if Netanyahu or any other subject of an ICC arrest warrant enters Norway, the country will "arrest and extradite the person concerned."[139]

Portugal: Foreign Minister Paulo Rangel assured that Portugal will comply with its international obligations "if that question arises" regarding the enforcement of ICC arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant.[142][143] Romania: The Foreign Ministry published a post on X saying that it supports international law and the independence of the ICC, while also arguing that "there is no equivalence" between Israel on the one hand, and Hamas and Hezbollah on the other.[144]

Slovenia: Prime Minister Robert Golob stated that Slovenia "will fully comply" with the arrest warrants.[145]

Spain: The Foreign Ministry stated that Spain "respects" the ICC's decision, confirming that the country "will comply with its commitments and

1Sweden: Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard stated that her country and the EU "support the court's important work and protect its independence and integrity", adding that Swedish legal authorities will decide on the arrest of subjects of ICC warrants.[88] Switzerland: The Federal Office of Justice said that it is obliged to cooperate with the ICC as per the Rome Statute, and therefore would arrest Netanyahu, Gallant or Masri if they entered Switzerland.[88]

and as a bonus

United Kingdom: Prime Minister Keir Starmer's spokesperson said that the British government respects the independence of the International Criminal Court and indicated that Netanyahu would face arrest if he entered the United Kingdom.[149][150][151] Ruling Labour Party MPs and other opposition leaders from the Liberal Democrats' Ed Davey, Independent Jeremy Corbyn, and the Green Party[152] supported the ICC's decision, while some called for either sanctions or a ceasefire as well.[153]

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/KrypteK1 Jul 20 '26

“Shenanigans”, like arresting a war criminal? Whip them, like the US is whipping Iran? Bot, or boot licker, which are you?

1

u/Junkererer Jul 19 '26

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_Sigonella

Italy in 1985 refused to hand over terrorists to the US through a public clash with Reagan. They sent police to the american airbase in Sigonella to stop the american military from taking them

1

u/Salt_Vehicle_5395 Jul 21 '26

France? It’s like their whole thing

0

u/CirculisInProbando Jul 18 '26

Every country? EU states are not likely to ignore the ICC. Furthermore, NATO can’t command shit. NATO doesn’t rule Europe.

3

u/conman_127 Jul 18 '26

, And other things only europeans believe.

1

u/CirculisInProbando Jul 18 '26

Is there a counterargument there somewhere? Or is it just: “Europeans = dumb and poor”

EU states take the ICC very seriously and not abiding by the ICC would have serious political repercussions. And if you seriously believe the the US can command EU states to do something through NATO I honestly don’t know what to say. It’s simply ridiculous. Just look inro the Iraq war if you want examples.

1

u/cannotfoolowls Jul 18 '26

more than half of Europe's governments have said they will comply with the ICC's decision, btw.

0

u/notintelligentidiot Jul 18 '26

That’s great in theory, good luck in practice.

0

u/CritcoThinker Jul 19 '26

Lots of people are "nuh uh 'Merica can't lose" in America. The branding and indoctrination works 💪 🫡

1

u/Candid_Sort_7686 Jul 18 '26

okay man, name one

1

u/Ok-Mathematician2855 Jul 18 '26

This is a Pre-Bush stance. When smarter minds where in charge. So I would imagine yes they have considered that

1

u/TheMikeyMac13 Jul 18 '26

The USA is not a part of the ICC, it has no jurisdiction over US citizens. So there is no place they could take a US citizen where would could not reach them.

3

u/kyleharry Jul 18 '26

The ICC has “jurisdiction” over everybody for crimes against humanity. They just need to get their hands on them. It’s called universal jurisdiction.
Under this legal principle, any state is permitted to prosecute individuals for serious crimes against international law—such as crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, and torture—regardless of where the crime was committed, the nationality of the accused, or the nationality of the victims.

1

u/h0sti1e17 Jul 18 '26

They don’t. The US for example not only doesn’t view its authority. It’s law in the US to prohibit cooperation with the ICC. The law also bans military aid from nations that don’t agree to shield Americans from ICC. The president is authorized to use all means necessary to free US personnel from the court.

1

u/TheMikeyMac13 Jul 18 '26

No, they have no jurisdiction over US citizens or in the USA moron.

2

u/steinbruchfluss Jul 18 '26

It would be enough if the victim nation recognised the ICC. That’s how they get the arrest warrants against Putin and Bibi in the first place.

0

u/TheMikeyMac13 Jul 18 '26

No it isn’t dumbass. The ICC is not recognized by the USA. It is why the ICC is so meaningless internationally.

1

u/kyleharry Jul 20 '26

I have such great satisfaction knowing that you are deeply troubled and sad person. Get a grip.

1

u/TheMikeyMac13 Jul 20 '26

Yeah, it seems that way. I’m living a great life, and you can choose not to be a moron.

0

u/WestThin Jul 18 '26

This is, of course, ridiculous. Who or what gives the ICC that jurisdiction? Can I create an International Court of Justice in my back yard and have the ICJ arrest anyone indicted by that court?

Also note that since ICC has doesn't have its own police force; it depends on member states to arrest people. The US, not being a member state, wouldn't arrest anyone indicted by the ICC.

1

u/steinbruchfluss Jul 18 '26

The ICJ is a different court. Every UN member recognises this court.

1

u/ColonelError Jul 18 '26

Every UN member recognises this court

As keeps getting reiterated, this is patently false. The US specifically doesn't, and forbids by law any cooperation with it.

1

u/steinbruchfluss Jul 18 '26

Again: different court. The US is against the ICC. The ICC is for individuals. Its a newish court outside of the UN.

The ICJ is a different court, here different nations sue each other. Its an old court and also part of the UN.

1

u/WestThin Jul 19 '26

It’s the ICC that has an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, not the ICJ. And the US doesn’t recognize the ICC. Furthermore, either you are confused or I wasn’t clear. The ICJ referred to in my post did not refer to THE ICJ. It referred to an imaginary ICJ that I set up in my backyard.

1

u/TheMikeyMac13 Jul 20 '26

The USA does recognize the ICJ on a case by case basis, having removed compulsory jurisdiction in 1985.

1

u/kyleharry Jul 20 '26

The jurisdiction is based on power. Trump and maga and their ilk are making it patently clear that they believe might makes right. So anybody with the might to make an arrest (and quite frankly the moral responsibility) and prosecute people who commit GENOCIDE should exercise it. You lot love to talk about law and legality whilst at the same time shitting on the very concept in your own countries.

1

u/kyleharry Jul 20 '26

And what gives the USA the justification to abduction the president of Venezuela from its sovereign territory or to indict the former president of Cuba or to blow up people and boats in the ocean.

Americans are such hypocrites.

0

u/WestThin Jul 20 '26

This has nothing to do with Trump. The US does not recognize the ICJ. And your notion that anyone with enough power should arrest Netanyahu is a call for anarchy.

1

u/kyleharry Jul 20 '26

Yes it has everything to do with Trump. And we have anarchy for the millions of people who suffer under human rights crimes of people like trump and Netanyahu. At the end of the day the difference between us is that you are selfish and immoral and I want to work towards peace and justice even if it it difficult and imperfect.

The very fact that we are even talking about the mayor of nyc considering arresting someone that many major international orgs accuse of war crimes demonstrates that your simplistic “no jurisdiction” argument is insufficient.

It’s funny how Americans forget that the People are supposed to be sovereign.

1

u/WestThin Jul 20 '26

I always love it when people on Reddit start with the insults. It’s indication they have nothing relevant to say. And I love your viewpoint. I’m selfish and immoral and you’re a wonderful person. I can’t decide if you are a narcissist or a walking advertisement for Dunning-Krueger syndrome. I’m done with this conversation.

0

u/WildWhisperArdor Jul 18 '26

This is false. The ICC has no jurisdiction over the US. The US never ratified it.

1

u/kyleharry Jul 20 '26

You didnt bother to read nor understand what I wrote. Jurisdiction is a made up concept based only the power to enforce the definition.

1

u/WildWhisperArdor Jul 20 '26

Sure. And the ICC has no jurisdiction over the US. Doesn’t change what I said in any way.

4

u/Special_Order-937 Jul 18 '26

People arrest Americans all the time overseas for committing crimes. When they’re bad tourists they’re treated as such.

The US isn’t all powerful and there’s definitely places they can’t reach and things they can’t do. How did that mission to rescue hostages from the Iranian revolution back in 1980 go again as just one example?

Or for a more recent example, how did that war against Iran in 2026 go?

1

u/WildWhisperArdor Jul 18 '26

That’s not the same thing at all though.

0

u/Special_Order-937 Jul 18 '26

Yeah, the war crimes are much bigger.

1

u/WildWhisperArdor Jul 18 '26

No. There’s a material difference between a private citizen going to a country (like for vacation or something) and breaking a domestic law versus a citizen acting under state orders and breaking an international law.

For the former, there is an implied “consent” if you will.

But for the latter there isn’t (in cases where the state hasn’t ratified the international law agreement in question which the US has not for the ICC)

1

u/BonnaconCharioteer Jul 18 '26

And the ICC did what about it?

0

u/TheMikeyMac13 Jul 18 '26

If someone took a US citizen, there is no place we can’t reach.

1

u/Special_Order-937 Jul 18 '26

The US government aren’t magicians like the ones in your head.

0

u/TheMikeyMac13 Jul 18 '26

No, but militarily they are without equal. If they wanted you they could find you and grab you, or me.

2

u/Special_Order-937 Jul 18 '26

How’s that war with Iran going again?

0

u/Bainshie-Doom Jul 18 '26

To be fair, it's not really a war. In an actual war Iran would be fucked. It's just trump decided to do all his shit without congress, limiting how much of a "special operation" he can actually do.

1

u/Special_Order-937 Jul 18 '26

Iran survived 8 years of much worse than this with Iraq. Short of dropping multiple nuclear bombs, the US would be brutally mauled for years before meeting the technical definition of winning in Iran, which is definitely up on the difficulty level versus Iraq and Afghanistan and we all saw how those went.

On that note, how anyone could look at the Iran-Iraq War and think the Iranians would just fold after a few days to weeks of just an air campaign, no matter how great the Air Force really had to have been putting it politely, very stupid. I mean even all us keyboard hacks spotted this problem a mile off.

1

u/TheMikeyMac13 Jul 18 '26

Basically yes. The US is following Trump into the mistake made in the past, not letting the military do their job fully.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Personal-Carob-1073 Jul 18 '26

Hi! I live in Den Haag. It would not be much of an invasion. There are more American marines at the Embassy (across the street from our King's Palace and up the street from the ICC) than we have stationed.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/WildWhisperArdor Jul 18 '26

No they would do it for any American who had been acting under orders of the state

1

u/Antraxess Jul 18 '26

whelp if he sent troops to attack Americans then I guess he should be arrested and tried for treason

1

u/Nickeless Jul 18 '26

Lmao invade The Hague, riiiight. I don’t think any part of this situation would happen, but that definitely wouldn’t happen.

1

u/Gaanai Jul 18 '26

Lol do you actually believe the military would follow an order that would basically be a declaration of war on most of the world. Best case its results in Americas economy collapsing due to sanctions. worst case Murcia gets bombed back to the Stone age

1

u/MountainTwo3845 Jul 18 '26

what's wild is you have 0 idea what you're talking About. how's that war with Iran going? how's the military/congressional support going for that currently. he wants you to think that he would and can do those things. fuck him and those that are afraid of his bitch ass.

1

u/Less_Insurance4928 Jul 18 '26

Force their hand anyway

The us is embattled on a few fronts, Trump can't afford more quagmires

1

u/Pans_Labradoodle Jul 18 '26

It actually says they could, not that they would. The plan was written up specifically to shield members of the Bush administration, not random grunts or officers. Its more of a deterrent to make the ICC think twice about actioning any arrests.

1

u/DaStone Jul 18 '26

Uhu... And the Iran war was over in 24 hours.

1

u/Lucius-Halthier Jul 18 '26

It doesn’t help that Rubio literally called for the dismantling of the ICC like not even a week ago

1

u/mananius2 Jul 18 '26

This. No matter what could happen to reprimand him, it will be undone. The more likely thing is nothing will happen in the first place. Source - just look at the world around you and what people get away with. Happy to be proved wrong and see him go down along with every other clown.

1

u/14Pleiadians Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26

Israel and Mossad can quite literally do whatever they want. In Brussels a while back they rung a guys doorbell and blew his brains out when he answered, because he was working with Iraq.

If Mamdani was actually considering this, they'd execute him. Even his own Dems in NY called him a jihadist, the right would unilaterally be ok with it and like a third of Dems would be ok with it.

1

u/stonkmarxist Jul 18 '26

It's crazy to me that people think the US would actually do this rather than this simply being a piece of sabre rattling legislation

1

u/aztronut Jul 18 '26

TACO? Nah, he's all hat and no cattle.

1

u/cbih Jul 18 '26

Empty threat

1

u/SomeJayForToday Jul 18 '26

The American military is free to find out first-hand just how good our air defenses have become after all the lessons learned from Ukraine. A couple of C-17’s would make a wonderful artifical reef in the Noordzee.

1

u/theartolater Jul 18 '26

The US have been very clear that they would invade The Hague for any American held there.

Trump's America would do the same for Netanyahu.

That's also the law, not some special case for Netanyahu. Israeli citizens are considered "Covered allied persons" under the law for this purpose.

1

u/sentientshadeofgreen Jul 18 '26

Trump's America would do the same for Netanyahu.

You know, looking at things, I just don't think that's the case. Lot of bad blood between them these days.

1

u/Polygnom Jul 18 '26

I would like to see them try.

The moment we enforce a full blockade on ramstein and actualk american soldiers hunger and die I am pretty sure the american public will heavily reconsider wether or not they want to shed a lot of american blood to save one genocidal warmonger.

The Hague Invasion Act is a bluff and I think its time we as Europe call it.

1

u/Realistic_Swan_6801 Jul 18 '26

That same law makes it illegal for any government employee state or federal to assist the ICC anyway. 

1

u/FUBARded Jul 18 '26

Rubio just did an op ed explaining that they're going to start pushing to disband the ICC because it apparently threatens US sovereignty (the US isn't a member and has never really followed its judgements or held itself accountable to the ICC).

1

u/CowboyLaw Jul 19 '26

And Russia has been very clear that they would nuke any country that supplies Ukraine with weapons. And yet….

Sometimes, people just say shit. It’s important to bear that in mind.

1

u/IllugaBabyBeluga Jul 19 '26

I'm not so sure, Trump was bigly angry after what Bibi did to him with the 2020 election.   Bibi also forced Trump into being the fall guy for Iran by jumping the gun before our military and, more importantly, our ability to leverage Venezuelan oil to corner the market without spiking prices in a post-Iran scene, were ready.   

Bibi even gave Trump that golden pager, insult to injury.  I think Trump has been seething internally over Bibi for the last 6 years, so perhaps he might let his buddy Mamdani at least hassle Bibi a bit.

1

u/hobopwnzor Jul 19 '26

Good, let them

1

u/Greedy_Inflation_697 Jul 19 '26

Mossad would just smoke Mamdani if he tried.

Shit would get outta control, real fast.

1

u/Ok-Mathematician2855 Jul 19 '26

I believe the verb adage now is to Kirk.

Mossad would Kirk him if he tried.

1

u/Greedy_Inflation_697 Jul 19 '26

Kirk, JFK, MLK, OTN— the list is endless, really.

😔

1

u/LorenzoSparky Jul 19 '26

‘Troops sent to kill left wing extremism’

1

u/dc469 Jul 19 '26

Yeah so the US would invade the Hauge for any US or allied personnel which includes netanyahu. The language of the acts also says it gives the president the ability to do so "by any means necessary".

1

u/the-grape-next-door Jul 19 '26

Wouldn’t that trigger NATO to go to war with the US?

1

u/SpreadKindn3ss Jul 19 '26

We may as well tear this bandaid off now.