How to Arrest Benjamin Netanyahu

US Legal Options and Barriers for Addressing ICC Warrant Against Netanyahu During UN Visit

The Hind Rajab Foundation, an organization focused on pursuing legal accountability for Israeli military personnel, has outlined arguments for potential US action against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his scheduled appearance at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. The foundation's position centers on two US federal statutes and questions surrounding diplomatic immunity.

On July 24, 2024, Palestinian health authorities reported 39,145 deaths and 90,257 injuries in Gaza since October 2023. These figures have been described by multiple observers as undercounts. Nearly the entire population of Gaza had been displaced at that point, with widespread damage to infrastructure including hospitals, water systems, and food distribution networks. The Israeli military campaign, launched after the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas, has continued with operations extending into southern Lebanon.

Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress on July 24, 2024, receiving multiple standing ovations. He expressed appreciation for US support and stated that Israel would continue its operations. Subsequent US arms transfers have included a $2.8 billion package announced in 2026 containing 40,000 2,000-pound bombs. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court.

The ICC issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu in 2024 on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity related to Gaza. The United States has declined to recognize the court's jurisdiction over its own nationals or allies and maintains sanctions and restrictions under the American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2001. That law limits cooperation with the ICC in cases involving "covered allied persons," a category that includes Israeli officials. Public polling cited by the foundation indicates majority American support for transferring Netanyahu to ICC custody, though no legislative repeal of the 2001 statute has advanced.

The foundation argues that US domestic law provides independent grounds for action. The War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441) incorporates provisions of the Geneva Conventions and Hague Conventions into federal criminal law. The Genocide Statute (18 U.S.C. § 1091) incorporates the 1948 Genocide Convention. Both statutes establish jurisdiction over alleged offenders present in the United States, regardless of nationality or location of the alleged acts, when the conduct falls within the defined prohibitions.

The foundation has referenced specific cases involving US citizens, including the detention of Mohammad Ibrahim and the death of Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi in the West Bank. These incidents are presented as examples of conduct that could fall under the statutes if evidence meets the required elements. The foundation states that Netanyahu's presence in New York would satisfy the physical-presence requirement for jurisdiction under these laws.

Diplomatic immunity presents a separate legal question. The Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations provides immunity during official UN business. Customary international law has historically extended absolute immunity to sitting heads of state from national court proceedings, though not from international tribunals. Legal scholars have noted that this absolute immunity doctrine developed after the Nuremberg trials and represents a departure from earlier state practice rejecting such immunity for certain international crimes. Recent examples include arrest warrants issued by Venezuela and Argentina against each other's presidents and a Turkish warrant against Netanyahu.

US practice has included prosecutions of foreign leaders such as Manuel Noriega in 1997 and the 2024 domestic case involving Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Courts have generally deferred to executive branch determinations on immunity claims. The foundation contends that this deference could allow prosecution under US statutes if the executive branch elects not to assert immunity.

The United States has supplied Israel with military aid throughout the campaign, including the recent bomb transfer. Israel maintains that its operations comply with international law and target Hamas infrastructure. The foundation's filings emphasize individual criminal responsibility for both policy makers and those carrying out operations.

The article's author is employed by the Hind Rajab Foundation, which has submitted complaints in multiple jurisdictions seeking investigations of Israeli soldiers and officials. Several countries have opened inquiries or imposed entry restrictions based on such submissions. The foundation's work focuses primarily on rank-and-file personnel while also targeting senior officials.

Netanyahu's UN appearance occurs against the backdrop of ongoing military operations in Gaza and southern Lebanon. The General Assembly has previously suspended other states' participation in analogous circumstances. Proposals to revive mechanisms such as the Special Committee against Apartheid have been discussed in diplomatic circles.

US law currently prohibits certain forms of cooperation with the ICC regarding Israeli officials. Any domestic prosecution would require the Department of Justice to initiate proceedings under the cited statutes and would face challenges on immunity, extraterritorial application, and evidentiary standards. The foundation presents these statutes as available tools; government officials have not indicated plans to invoke them against Netanyahu.

The legal debate involves competing interpretations of head-of-state immunity, the reach of US criminal statutes, and the effect of non-ratification of the Rome Statute. Courts would ultimately resolve questions of jurisdiction and immunity if charges were filed.