In the face of Israel’s war—a response forced upon it by Hamas’s brutal assault aimed at the nation’s destruction—there is a disturbing tendency to forget the context, the cause and the necessity of its actions. This same amnesia seems to pervade commentary surrounding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent visit to Hungary and the joint condemnation by him and Viktor Orbán of the International Criminal Court.
As the journalist Iuri Maria Prado noted, the ICC is often regarded—by even the most ardent defenders of legal formalism—as an “oracular center of orientation.” This couldn’t be more evident today. Mainstream media treats Netanyahu as a war criminal by default, and scolds him for meeting with Orbán, the European Union’s black sheep. Underlying this indignation is the unspoken assumption that Israel must always be condemned, regardless of the circumstances.
When the subject is war, the world rushes to criticize Israel while erasing the reality that Hamas must be defeated for the sake of Israel’s very survival. Humanitarian accusations, many of which have been exaggerated or outright fabricated, dance around the facts: Israel has abided by international humanitarian laws, provided food, issued warnings before attacks and shown restraint despite unprecedented provocation. The casualty figures repeatedly cited are wildly inflated and unsupported by serious investigative journalism.
Now, as the conversation shifts to Netanyahu’s trip to Budapest, once again the political meaning is conveniently ignored. This was more than a diplomatic visit—it was a symbolic act of resistance. Stepping foot safely on European soil, Netanyahu confronted the legitimacy of the ICC and the falsehoods it propagates, especially as Orbán declares his intention to withdraw from the institution.
And yet, many European newspapers refer to the ICC’s decisions as if they were soundly legal and beyond reproach. But a closer look at its procedures reveals political betrayal: its goal was never justice, but rather the strategic paralysis of Israel. By placing Netanyahu—the only democratically elected leader in the Middle East—on the same level as Yahya Sinwar, the mass-murdering head of Hamas, the ICC has exposed its own moral and procedural collapse.
Only a few have dared challenge this narrative. Some, like Italy and France, questioned the ICC’s jurisdiction; others, like Slovakia and Belgium, have voiced their discomfort. But only Orbán and the United States have fully stepped outside the U.N.-driven institutional onslaught against Israel. As Netanyahu said in Budapest, this is a “corrupt game”—and it’s time to ring the bell for a new international legal order, one not hijacked by political interests.
Whatever one thinks of Orbán, he cannot be dismissed on this issue. The U.N. has long been rotten when it comes to Israel, and the ICC is no better. Just as U.N. Secretary-General Guterres once justified Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities by referring to a fictitious 75-year “occupation,” so now a caricature is emerging: an international axis of semi-dictators, just as Netanyahu is preparing to meet with with Donald Trump.
This caricature conveniently obscures the real issue—a politicized and corrupted ICC, and a world media driven by ignorance and prejudice toward Netanyahu and Israel. The Israeli prime minister is now seeking to weave a new international alliance. As the world grapples with trade tariffs, Netanyahu is discussing Israel’s solutions. But the Middle Eastern landscape has shifted. Beyond the hostages and the tragedy of Gaza, two new challenges await resolution.
First, the Iranian threat. Trump is reportedly weighing the destruction of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and renegotiating the regional equation. On the Sunni front, Turkey and Qatar have grown bolder, fueled by perceived Shia failures. Israel is willing—but lacks the tools—to contain it all.
In this context, Netanyahu’s visit to Orbán and his upcoming dialogue with the U.S. are not signs of authoritarianism, but of a profound and determined will to survive. And yet, not a single other European leader welcomed Israel’s return to the continent. No one joined Orbán in extending an invitation. No voice rose to say that, at the very least, the ICC must be reformed.
So perhaps we should stop feigning shock when Netanyahu meets with Hungary’s prime minister, or when Trump chooses to welcome the leader of a small nation fighting not only for its own survival—but for the freedom of all against terrorism.
