Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s flight to New York this week for the United Nations General Assembly took a highly unusual path that has raised eyebrows and fueled a lot of speculation. Rather than taking the standard route over Europe, his Boeing 767 took a circuitous detour over the Mediterranean and Atlantic before turning west, adding more than two hours to the journey.
Netanyahu Avoids Europe On Flight To New York
Netanyahi flew from Tel Aviv (TLV) to New York (JK) on The Wing of Zion, Israel’s equivalent of the US’s Air Force One, a modified Boeing 767-300 with registration code 4X-ISR.
At first glance, the flight path made little sense. A direct routing over Europe is shorter and more efficient, and in the past, Netanyahu’s aircraft has regularly crossed European airspace, even as recently as earlier 2025. So why the change this time?
The answer appears to be rooted in politics and legal risk. In 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes in Gaza. While the likelihood of arrest is extremely low, the risk is not zero. If the plane had been forced to divert into an ICC member state due to a mechanical issue or medical emergency, authorities could theoretically carry out the warrant, even in Europe.
Countries like France, Spain, and others have signed onto the ICC, meaning overflying their airspace carries some legal exposure. According to The Guardian, France had technically granted overflight permission for Netanyahu’s plane, but the route filed avoided French airspace entirely. The decision may reflect both a cautious legal strategy and strained diplomatic relations, with France recently clashing with Israel over recognition of Palestine.
By flying south over the Mediterranean, passing through the Strait of Gibraltar, and then crossing the Atlantic, Netanyahu’s aircraft stuck to airspace considered lower risk. Why? The extra flight time and fuel burn were seen as acceptable tradeoffs for reducing the chance of any legal entanglement en route.
But why? I mean, was he really going to divert to Morocco or Algeria if there was an issue? The answer is here:
Fears of a medical emergency while in the air were heightened as Netanyahu had his prostate removed in late 2024. “He had just had surgery, he came with two doctors, and they told him he may have to land for treatment,” it quoted the ambassador as saying. “But if he were to land anywhere in Europe, he could be arrested as a war criminal.”
The ambassador reportedly said Netanyahu’s flight deviated to fly in airspace close to US army bases, so he could land on those in an emergency.
This is it.
Yes, the unusual routing also has a symbolic dimension. Avoiding Europe entirely underscores Israel’s current isolation among many Western capitals and highlights the diplomatic tension surrounding Netanyahu’s government. Even in something as routine as a flight to New York, the politics of international law and diplomacy are on full display.
But the “smoking gun” is the proximity to US “sanctuary” bases in case of medical or mechanical emergency…
CONCLUSION
Netanyahu’s odd flight path to New York was not only about minimizing legal risk and avoiding potential diplomatic embarrassment, but not straying far from a friendly US base in case of diversion. With an ICC warrant outstanding, even the small chance of an unscheduled landing in hostile territory was enough to reshape the route. The result was a costly but calculated detour — a reminder that politics sometimes dictates flight plans just as much as operational necessity.
I don’t blame him for steering clear of countries where the rule of law is paramount.
I don’t blame him for steering clear of countries which persecuted Galileo and continue to persecute rationality .
Given that Galileo died centuries ago I somehow suspect that he and Netanyahu didn’t hang out together. Also, Western Europe is more rational and secular than our country.
Europe lost their claim to civil rationality when they allowed millions of terrorist migrants from middle east , who have been committing terrorist acts against their hosts for a decade now .
That was persecution against their own citizens .
For example , the various Christmas Market murders .
Arresting him for war crimes could be the catalyst for WW2.5 with friend vs friend as the US would not stand for this. The biggest question is how the US, Russia and China would split up what’s left of Europe.
Consider a follow up article covering what status of forces agreements often cover and if US bases are extraterritorial. It would be very interesting to read.
Gitmo seems to be outside US law but Cuban law isn’t observed.
Landing at a US base could cause a diplomatic incident. Italy said it would arrest him despite being a signatory state to the ICC treaty. After Italy, it could be risky to divert to US bases in Spain or Portugal or the Azores. Don’t know about Canada.
It would be great to have him arrested. He along with Trump are two of the worst men on earth that represent democratic (or former) nations
At least Trump hasn’t committed genocide.
This is how a cockroach is forced to travel. He is the modern day Hitler.
Dude, come on. I’d expect Albanese to obliterate Papua New Guinea if it waged a deadly attack on Darwin and to stop at nothing until he was sure that its government laid down its arms and could never attack Australia again. It’s called self-defense, just like how the US killed Germans and Japanese during WWII. To be celebrated? Heck no. But necessary and utilitarian? Yes.
Starvation as a tool to commit genocide is something both Uncle Joe and Adolph did. Likewise for Bibi.
By your definition, so did FDR and Truman. Sorry, Hamas needs to surrender if it wants Israel to stop defending itself. I don’t see the way you do.
I’m considerably more knowledgeable than most about history but I have never heard of either FDR or Truman committing genocide or intentionally starving any nation or ethnic group to death. In my opinion FDR would have at least considered doing so but that wasn’t how Truman functioned. Neither would be likely to agree to machine gunning children who were running to aid convoys. At any rate I’d genuinely like to know what you base this on.
Yes, because it wasn’t genocide. It was self-defense. But surely you’re aware of the sustained Allied bombing of German cities or LeMay’s fireboming of Japan (plus Operation Starvation), to cite two examples. Hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians dead. Brutal, deadly, but deemed as necessary to win the war. Israel is doing what is necessary to prevent further harm to its citizens, which is the fundamental duty of a government. These anecdotes about Israeli soldiers deliberately shooting children are like the Nazi Information Ministry exaggerating every Allied attack, a routine occurrence.
@Matthew … The German “Blitz” of British cities ; the Allied destruction of German cities ; and the firebombing of Japanese cities were not self-defence .
They were destruction of civilians .
That’s a matter of perspective.
I did a little digging as I’d never heard of Operation Starvation. Although you can make a valid argument about whether the USA or Japan was more at fault for the Pacific Ocean theater the fact is that Japan initiated hostilities.
Reverting to the issue, the Allies never were attempting genocide, just military victory. That ultimately is the difference.
@Christian … Agree . Starvation is a crime . Also , obliteration of medical care is a crime . Those are not legitimate military strategies .
As sad as it is, sometimes when people are used as human shields by the enemy, they get killed…
@Matthew … Many words have been written on “military necessity” and “international humanitarian law” , which must not be deliberately flouted .
Although Israel’s war against Hamas may be “just” , it does not excuse tactics or strategies which are “unjust” . If the tactics or strategies include starvation and obliteration of medical care , of innocents unknown to be Hamas , then they are “unjust” . Not saying these tactics or strategies are deliberate , or national policy , yet if they are happening the perpetrators are committing crimes .
I make no apologies Matthew. He is a genocidal megalomaniac and it is a damned shame he hasn’t been hung, drawn and quartered yet. He fired missiles into Qatar for goodness sake. Can you imagine the response if it had been the US being fired on? He does it because he knows he can get away with literal murder.
By 1945, Germany and Japan were already effectively defeated and could no longer conduct offensive campaigns.
There is an argument that LeMay/Dresden/Etc was necessary. An invasion of Japan would have cost millions of lives. The firebombings and atomic bombs forced unconditional surrender and saved lives overall.
Historians also make a compelling argument that these moves were excessive. Japan was already seeking surrender terms and was economically strangled. The bombings (Tokyo: 100,000 dead in one night, Dresden: 25,000) were collective punishment, not military necessity – more about demonstrating power than ending a war that was already won.
We created the modern Geneva Conventions in 1949 specifically because WWII’s civilian bombings were seen as going too far. Even if those actions “worked,” we decided they violated basic principles of warfare. Using WWII to justify current actions ignores that we literally wrote new international laws saying “never again” to exactly those tactics.
On this current crisis – Netanyahu and Likud strengthened Hamas to weaken the Palestinian Authority and prevent Palestinian statehood. Netanyahu and senior officials publicly called Hamas a counterweight to the PA and coordinated Qatari funds to Gaza from 2012 to 2023, including sending Mossad to ensure transfers continued. Resignations and internal dissent confirmed that the policy empowered Hamas. Historical precedent shows Israel has long used Hamas to influence Palestinian politics. The evidence from statements, financial facilitation, and corroborating testimony strongly suggests this was a deliberate strategy.
October 7th was a horrific war crime and an incalculable travesty that is beyond categorization in its horrific impact. Israel has a right to defend itself. The innocent civilians of Gaza also deserve leaders committed to their general welfare (Hamas doesn’t do this), and like Israelis those innocent Gazans do not deserve collective punishment. Without questioning his motives, Bibi has demonstrated extremely flawed judgment leading up to and following October 7th. Israel deserves better.