Diplomatic tensions between Israel and Canada have intensified after Israeli officials called on Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to retract his pledge to enforce the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, should he enter Canadian territory.
The controversy erupted after Carney reaffirmed his position during an interview with Bloomberg last week, stating his administration would honour the ICC’s warrant against Netanyahu. When asked directly whether Canada would execute the arrest if Netanyahu visited, Carney responded firmly: “Yes.”
The remark triggered an immediate backlash from Israel’s government, which condemned the statement as a diplomatic affront. Israeli spokesperson Shosh Bedrosian publicly urged Carney to “reconsider” his position, emphasising that Netanyahu is “the leader of the only Jewish state and the only democratic country in the Middle East.”
“We believe that Prime Minister Carney should, of course, reconsider this and welcome Prime Minister Netanyahu to Canada,” Bedrosian told reporters in Jerusalem, warning that Canada’s current posture could cause lasting damage to bilateral ties.
The call for restraint underscores the deepening strain between the two long-time allies. For decades, Canada has maintained close political, economic, and security relations with Israel, often supporting it in international forums. However, Carney’s reaffirmation of Canada’s commitment to international justice — even at the cost of political friction — marks a significant departure from the cautious diplomacy that characterized his predecessors.
Background of the ICC Warrant
The International Criminal Court, based in The Hague, issued arrest warrants in 2024 for both Benjamin Netanyahu and several senior Israeli officials, alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection with Israel’s military operations in Gaza. The ICC’s prosecutor cited evidence of indiscriminate bombardments, civilian casualties, and restrictions on humanitarian aid during the conflict, which intensified following Hamas’s cross-border attacks in 2023.
Israel has consistently rejected the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that it is not a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC. Israeli officials maintain that their military operations comply with international humanitarian law and that the accusations are politically motivated.
Netanyahu himself has called the ICC decision a “travesty of justice,” insisting that Israel has a robust internal legal system capable of investigating alleged misconduct by its armed forces. The United States — another non-member of the ICC — has also criticized the court’s actions, calling them “deeply flawed” and warning against efforts to criminalize Israel’s right to self-defense.
Canada’s Diplomatic Dilemma
Prime Minister Carney’s statement has placed Canada at the heart of a complex geopolitical and moral debate — one that tests Ottawa’s commitment to international law against its historical alliance with Israel.
The Carney administration has sought to project a foreign policy rooted in multilateralism, human rights, and the rule of law. His confirmation that Canada would uphold the ICC warrant, even against an allied head of government, aligns with that broader vision but risks provoking a major diplomatic rift.
Analysts say Carney’s firm stance reflects his belief that Canada must be consistent in its application of international norms. “For years, Canada has supported the ICC in principle,” said Dr. Laura McNeil, a political scientist at the University of Ottawa. “If Ottawa were to ignore the court’s warrant simply because it involves a powerful ally, it would undermine Canada’s credibility as a defender of international justice.”
Yet, the move has sparked fierce debate within Canada. Opposition politicians and some pro-Israel advocacy groups have condemned Carney’s comments as “reckless” and “divisive,” warning they could isolate Canada diplomatically and threaten trade or intelligence cooperation with Israel.
Recognition of Palestinian State Adds to Strain
The situation has been further inflamed by Canada’s recent decision to formally recognize the State of Palestine, a move announced earlier this month after years of domestic debate. Israel condemned the recognition as a “prize for terrorism,” claiming it rewarded violent extremism rather than advancing peace.
Israeli spokesperson Bedrosian accused Ottawa of “pouring fuel on an antisemitic fire,” suggesting the recognition had emboldened anti-Israel sentiment within Canada. The accusation has been met with sharp rebuttals from Canadian officials, who insist that the recognition aims to encourage renewed peace negotiations and promote a two-state solution — not to delegitimize Israel.
Foreign policy observers note that Carney’s actions may represent a broader realignment of Canada’s Middle East policy, positioning it closer to European nations that have taken more critical stances toward Israel’s military conduct. The recognition of Palestine and the willingness to enforce ICC mandates signal that Canada is embracing a more assertive, principle-driven diplomatic identity.
Israel’s Response and the Road Ahead
For Israel, the dispute comes at a sensitive time. Netanyahu’s government is already facing international scrutiny and internal protests over its handling of the Gaza conflict and judicial reforms. The possibility of an allied Western nation enforcing an arrest warrant against its sitting prime minister is unprecedented — and politically explosive.
Behind closed doors, Israeli diplomats are reportedly exploring ways to defuse tensions, including seeking private assurances from Canadian counterparts that the ICC warrant will not be acted upon in practice. However, Carney’s direct and unambiguous statement — and his government’s public reaffirmation of it — leaves little room for diplomatic ambiguity.
The standoff highlights a deeper shift in global attitudes toward Israel’s conduct in Gaza, as more nations weigh the balance between long-standing alliances and accountability under international law. It also raises questions about how far Western democracies are willing to go in upholding the authority of the ICC when it implicates their own allies.
A Test of Principles
As both governments navigate the fallout, the issue is quickly becoming a litmus test for Canada’s foreign policy identity under Carney’s leadership. Supporters argue that standing firm on the rule of law reinforces Canada’s moral authority on the global stage. Critics warn that such rigidity risks isolating Ottawa and damaging a decades-long friendship.
For now, Israel remains adamant that the warrant is illegitimate and politically biased. Canada, meanwhile, faces the delicate task of defending its principles without triggering a full-blown diplomatic rupture.
Whether Carney ultimately softens his stance or doubles down, one thing is clear: the controversy has already redefined the contours of Canada–Israel relations. What was once one of the West’s most stable partnerships now stands at a crossroads — one defined by competing visions of justice, sovereignty, and accountability in a changing world.
