When Netanyahu wntered Hungaria he should have been arresten for the icc

1. What the warrant means and who issued it

The ICC’s judges approved arrest warrants in November 2024 for Netanyahu (and others) on allegations including war crimes and crimes against humanity relating to actions in Gaza; as an independent tribunal the ICC does not have its own police force and relies on member states to arrest and transfer suspects ^{[5] [6]}.

2. Hungary’s legal obligation — and its political decision

As a founding member of the Rome Statute, Hungary is theoretically obliged to arrest individuals subject to ICC warrants who enter its territory; nonetheless Prime Minister Viktor Orbán publicly vowed that the warrant “would have no effect” in Hungary and announced intent to withdraw from the court shortly after Netanyahu arrived, creating a political choice to defy the ICC even while treaty obligations formally remained in force for a year after notification ^{[7] [8] [2]}.

3. How events unfolded during the visit

Netanyahu’s visit included high‑profile ceremonial welcomes and meetings with Orbán; the ICC says it sent an official arrest-and-surrender request to Budapest hours after Netanyahu landed, which Hungarian authorities declined to act upon and then initiated the withdrawal process from the Rome Statute ^{[9] [1] [2]}.

4. The ICC’s response and follow‑up accountability steps

After Hungary did not detain Netanyahu, the ICC requested an explanation and later a three‑judge panel reported Hungary to the court’s oversight organization for failing to comply, saying the omission undermined the court’s ability to carry out its mandate ^{[3] [4]}.

5. Arguments from rights groups and critics

Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other NGOs urged Hungary to arrest Netanyahu and criticized the visit as an affront to victims and to international criminal law; Amnesty called the invitation “contempt for international law” and urged ICC cooperation, while Human Rights Watch said all ICC members should uphold arrest obligations ^{[10] [5] [7]}.

6. Arguments from Hungary and allied voices

Orbán framed the ICC decision as political and announced his government would not enforce the warrant; he has characterized the court’s action as unacceptable and taken an explicitly political stance prioritizing solidarity with Netanyahu, a position that also drew support or non‑arrest signals from some other states ^{[7] [11] [1]}.

7. Practical limits on arresting heads of government

Multiple outlets note practical and legal complexities: the ICC depends on states to act, and enforcement has varied historically; experts and reporting pointed out that despite legal obligations, political choices, domestic law procedures and diplomatic considerations often determine whether a visiting leader is detained ^{[6] [11] [3]}.

8. Legal status of Hungary’s withdrawal and immediate obligations

Under the Rome Statute, a state must notify the UN Secretary‑General and withdrawal takes effect one year later; that means Hungary’s announcement did not immediately remove its treaty obligations to cooperate with the ICC for actions occurring while it remained a party, a point the court reiterated ^{[2] [12]}.

9. Where coverage diverges and remaining questions

News outlets agree on the core facts — warrant, visit, Hungarian refusal — but differ in emphasis: some reporting underscores the symbolic defiance and political theatre ^{[1] [7]}, NGOs stress legal and moral duty to enforce the warrant ^{[5] [10]}, and legal analysts highlight procedural and enforcement constraints that make arrests uncertain ^{[11] [6]}. Available sources do not mention whether Hungarian courts faced — or would face — independent domestic legal challenges compelling arrest beyond the ICC’s demands (not found in current reporting).

10. Bottom line for your original question (“he should have been arrested”)

Legally, ICC member states are obliged to arrest warrant‑holders who enter their territory; by that standard many rights groups and the ICC itself say Hungary should have arrested Netanyahu ^{[6] [5] [10]}. Politically and in practice, Hungary chose not to, publicly defied the court, and later began withdrawal steps — and the ICC has since pursued explanations and oversight remedies against Budapest for that failure ^{[2] [3] [4]}.

Limitations: this summary uses the provided reports and statements; it does not attempt to adjudicate the underlying ICC allegations themselves beyond reflecting prosecution and international responses described in those sources ^{[5] [1]}.