Viktor Orban is not a well-loved figure in European capitals, and has no shortage of critics in America—and some of their complaints ought to be taken seriously. But he is a friend of Israel, as his meeting with Netanyahu demonstrates. Not only did he dismiss the ICC’s allegations, he took the visit as an opportunity to announce that Hungary is leaving the Rome Statute, which established the court, altogether. Fiamma Nirenstein writes:

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 UN-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.

On Monday night, the IDF struck a group of Hamas operatives near the Nasser hospital in Khan Yunis, the main city in southern Gaza. The very fact of this attack was reassuring, as it suggested that the release of Edan Alexander didn’t come with restraints on Israeli military activity. Then, yesterday afternoon, Israeli jets carried out another, larger attack on Khan Yunis, hitting a site where it believed Mohammad Sinwar, the head of Hamas in Gaza, to be hiding. The IDF has not yet confirmed that he was present. There is some hope that the death of Sinwar—who replaced his older brother Yahya after he was killed last year—could have a debilitating effect on Hamas.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is visiting the Persian Gulf, and it’s unclear how his diplomatic efforts there will affect Israel, its war with Hamas, and Iran. For its part, Jerusalem has committed to resume full-scale operations in Gaza after President Trump returns to the U.S. But, Gabi Simoni and Erez Winner explain, Israel does not have unlimited time to defeat Hamas:

Israel faces persistent security challenges across multiple fronts—Iran, the West Bank, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon—all demanding significant military resources, especially during periods of escalation. . . . Failing to achieve a decisive victory not only prolongs the conflict but also drains national resources and threatens Israel’s ability to obtain its strategic goals.

Only a swift, forceful military campaign can achieve the war’s objectives: securing the hostages’ release, ensuring Israeli citizens’ safety, and preventing future kidnappings. Avoiding such action won’t just prolong the suffering of the hostages and deepen public uncertainty—it will also drain national resources and weaken Israel’s standing in the region and beyond.

We recommend launching an intense military operation in Gaza without delay, with clear, measurable objectives—crippling Hamas’s military and governance capabilities and securing the release of hostages. Such a campaign should combine military pressure with indirect negotiations, maximizing the chances of a successful outcome while minimizing risks.

Crucially, the operation must be closely coordinated with the United States and moderate Arab states to reduce international pressure and preserve the gains of regional alliances.