spiked93%

Mamdani’s mad plot to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu 76%

By Luke Gittos55%

7/23/2026, 11:55:16 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 19.5% saturation with 155 hits. Analysis detected 1,193 faulty-reasoning hits from 793 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67.4% and a BS Rank of 76% (5,402 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.30% of the article peer group.

New York mayor Zohran Mamdani has been forced to roll back on his campaign promise that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be arrested for war crimes if he ever touched down in New York. 
On Wednesday, Mamdani said that ‘anyone with their eyes, with their heart’ could see the devastation that Netanyahu had caused through Israel’s attack on Gaza. 
But, he was forced to confess, his administration ‘did not have the independent legal authority’ to arrest Netanyahu on the basis of an International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant. 
I suppose the city’s legal department did its job in advising Mamdani that it was not a good idea for officers from the New York Police Department to arrest the democratically elected prime minister of a foreign country. 
Who knew? 
Mamdani reminds me of a 21-year-old version of myself. 
Much like many others like me, I would call for Tony Blair and George W Bush to be ‘arrested for war crimes’ and ‘tried in The Hague’ following the botched invasion of Iraq. 
It was a thing to say. 
Yet we knew, even then, that there was zero chance of either man being arrested. 
We knew that the ICC was a toothless international institution that was used to prosecute  and there is no polite way of saying this  African dictators. 
Until 2016, every person convicted by the ICC had come from an African country. 
Things have changed a bit. 
The ICC now sees its role as intervening in conflicts across a wider range of continents, including the Middle East. 
It issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, in November 2024. 
They were the first leaders of a Western-backed democratic country to have ICC warrants issued against them. 
At the same time, the ICC prosecutor sought arrest warrants against members of the Hamas leadership: Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh. 
All of these warrants were withdrawn after their deaths were confirmed. 
Mamdani’s ridiculous intervention should not only remind us that he is a bit mad. 
It should also make us remember how grotesque it was for the ICC prosecutor to pursue the Israeli and Hamas leaders together. 
The warrants alleged that the Israelis had used ‘starvation as a method of warfare’. 
This was the first time that the ICC had issued arrest warrants based on the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare  a crime that is notoriously difficult to prove. 
This difficulty was compounded by the role that aid played in the war against Hamas. 
Israel claimed that Hamas stole food aid and sold it to civilians in order to fund its activities  something that was effectively admitted by the UN this month. 
Israel also argued that restrictions on aid and other materials were necessary to prevent supplies and dual-use goods from being diverted to Hamas. 
Nor is there any persuasive evidence that proves there has been a famine in Gaza, as was repeatedly claimed by Israel’s critics. 
The Gazan health ministry’s own data breakdowns indicate that four malnutrition-related deaths were documented in 2023, 49 deaths in 2024, and 260 in between January and 27 August 2025. 
These are terrible numbers, but not nearly as high as one might expect if Israel had been using hunger as a deliberate ‘weapon of war’. 
Even if they were true, it would be deeply hypocritical for Western nations to target Israel. 
Far more destructive military blockades were used by the Allied powers during the First and Second World Wars. 
The blockade imposed by Britain and its allies on the Central Powers from 1914 was associated with hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. 
These deaths were, of course, never considered by an international criminal tribunal. 
In contrast, it is now widely accepted that the attack on 7 October represented some of the worst war crimes committed against civilians in recent history. 
Hamas filmed these crimes. 
Its members boasted about them. 
The evidence was undeniable. 
Yet the ICC prosecutor took the decision to pursue Israel’s leaders, on highly contested grounds, at the same time as the leaders of a mob of genocidal terrorists. 
Zohran Mamdani’s ridiculous calls to arrest the leader of a democratic country do not merely show how divorced from reality the New York mayor has become. 
It should remind us that the International Criminal Court has become an overtly political institution, which is happy to use tenuous interpretations of the law to posture on the international stage. 
A reckoning with its toxic influence long overdue. 
Luke Gittos is a spiked columnist and author. 
His most recent book is Human Rights  Illusory Freedom: Why We Should Repeal the Human Rights Act, which is published by Zero Books. 
Order it here. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.4%Luke Gittos: 9.5%spiked: 8.9%Confirmation Bias5.4%This article: 3.7%Luke Gittos: 1.0%spiked: 0.5%Anchoring Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 1.4%spiked: 4.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 1.8%Luke Gittos: 1.2%spiked: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic1.8%This article: 1.9%Luke Gittos: 0.8%spiked: 1.0%Hindsight Bias1.9%This article: 5.4%Luke Gittos: 1.5%spiked: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias5.4%This article: 2.5%Luke Gittos: 5.5%spiked: 8.4%Framing Effect2.5%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 0.0%spiked: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.3%Luke Gittos: 0.3%spiked: 0.5%Status Quo Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 0.0%spiked: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.2%Luke Gittos: 0.4%spiked: 0.9%Optimism Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 0.9%spiked: 2.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.1%Luke Gittos: 10.6%spiked: 13.1%Negativity Bias16.1%This article: 1.1%Luke Gittos: 0.6%spiked: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias1.1%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 0.6%spiked: 2.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 0.0%spiked: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 1.2%spiked: 3.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Luke Gittos: 2.2%spiked: 4.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 0.0%spiked: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 1.5%spiked: 1.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.1%Luke Gittos: 0.5%spiked: 1.1%Recency Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 0.6%spiked: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Luke Gittos: 6.0%spiked: 7.3%Ad Hominem6.6%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 1.7%spiked: 5.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.4%Luke Gittos: 3.9%spiked: 2.6%Appeal to Authority3.4%This article: 5.3%Luke Gittos: 2.8%spiked: 4.0%False Dilemma5.3%This article: 1.0%Luke Gittos: 1.3%spiked: 3.1%Slippery Slope1.0%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 0.0%spiked: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.0%Luke Gittos: 6.8%spiked: 15.0%Hasty Generalization9.0%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 0.2%spiked: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.5%Luke Gittos: 1.1%spiked: 0.9%Bandwagon0.5%This article: 10.2%Luke Gittos: 9.5%spiked: 8.0%Appeal to Emotion10.2%This article: 3.8%Luke Gittos: 3.0%spiked: 2.1%Begging the Question3.8%This article: 3.3%Luke Gittos: 0.4%spiked: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.3%This article: 2.3%Luke Gittos: 1.8%spiked: 0.6%Tu Quoque2.3%This article: 6.9%Luke Gittos: 2.4%spiked: 1.0%Burden of Proof6.9%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 0.0%spiked: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 0.0%spiked: 0.7%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.2%Luke Gittos: 0.6%spiked: 4.0%Anecdotal4.2%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 0.0%spiked: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.5%Luke Gittos: 1.3%spiked: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.5%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 0.0%spiked: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 5.0%Luke Gittos: 1.1%spiked: 0.2%Personal Incredulity5.0%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 0.0%spiked: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 0.0%spiked: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.2%Luke Gittos: 1.5%spiked: 2.5%Unattributed Quote7.2%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 0.5%spiked: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 19.5%Luke Gittos: 19.7%spiked: 25.8%Biased Writer Voice19.5%This article: 1.0%Luke Gittos: 4.6%spiked: 3.2%Indoctrination1.0%This article: 0.0%Luke Gittos: 0.0%spiked: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Luke Gittos: 7.5%spiked: 9.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias4.5%This article: 0.4%Luke Gittos: 2.1%spiked: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.4%

793 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker3.2%attributed speech768writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageZohran Mamdani • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Zohran Mamdani

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words100% of attributed speech75% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-20.2 ptsWriter: 20.2%Zohran Mamdani: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-7.4 ptsWriter: 7.4%Zohran Mamdani: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -4.7 ptsWriter: 4.7%Zohran Mamdani: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-1.0 ptsWriter: 1.0%Zohran Mamdani: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -0.4 ptsWriter: 0.4%Zohran Mamdani: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.