Deterioration of the Canada – Israel relationship post October 7th
Summer 2026
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This paper examines the deterioration of Canada–Israel relations after the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023. It traces the relationship from the particularly close alignment of the Stephen Harper years through the changing policies of the Trudeau and Carney governments, arguing that humanitarian concerns surrounding the Gaza war, domestic political pressures, and broader shifts in Canadian foreign policy contributed to a significant cooling of bilateral ties. The paper focuses on Canada’s evolving rhetoric, calls for a ceasefire, restrictions on arms exports, and recognition of Palestinian statehood as indicators of this change. It argues that these developments weakened Israel’s perception of Canada as a consistent diplomatic partner and reduced the level of trust that had characterized the relationship in earlier years.
Before Stephen Harper was elected as Prime Minister, Canada had a generally supportive relationship with Israel but often framed it through a more balanced and transnational approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Canadian governments recognized Israel’s right to exist and defend itself, while also supporting peace negotiations and showing concern for Palestinian self-determination. This meant that before Harper, Canada was friendly toward Israel but usually avoided presenting itself as an avid defender of Israel on the International stage.
This all changed in 2006 when Stephen Harper was elected as the 22nd Prime Minister of Canada. During Harper’s time in office, Canada became more firmly and publicly pro-Israel, and Harper argued that Israel was often unfairly singled out internationally, especially at the United Nations. His government made defending Israel a clearer part of Canada’s foreign policy. Harper’s 2014 speech to the Knesset symbolized this shift as he promised that Canada would stand with Israel “through fire and water”. Harper also made efforts to strengthen diplomatic ties by emphasizing shared democratic values, security cooperation, and opposition to terrorism. As a result, the Harper era created one of the closest periods in the Canada-Israel relationship, making the post-October 7th deterioration seem even more significant.
On October 7th, 2023, Hamas launched a large-scale terrorist attack against Israel, killing innocent civilians and taking hostages. This forced many countries internationally, including Canada, to respond publicly and diplomatically. Originally, Canada’s Prime Minister at the time, Justin Trudeau, responded, stating that he “unequivocally condemns” the attacks and described Hamas as a terrorist organization. These actions demonstrate that Canada initially stood in clear support of Israel. Canada previously listed Hamas as a recognized terrorist organization, which made the government’s condemnation consistent with existing Canadian law. Trudeau reaffirmed Canada’s support for Israel and the right for Israel to defend itself, while also stating that this must happen in accordance with international law. This shows how Canada supported Israel early in the war while also operating within a strict legal framework. Canada had an emphasis on the suffering of Israeli civilians and supported efforts to return hostages taken by Hamas. As Trudeau’s support for Israel weakened, he started addressing the humanitarian aid situation in Gaza and called for Gazan civilians to be protected by Israel. This marks the start of the tension that eventually developed in the relationship. Canada proceeded to provide humanitarian aid for Gaza. A Reuters report claimed that over 21,600 pounds of aid were air-dropped into Gaza by the Canadian government, showing that Canada’s position was increasingly becoming concerned with the humanitarian situation. Canada’s initial response stood firmly with Israel, but the inclusion of humanitarian aid and international law language created the foundation for tension as the war continued.
The Canada-Israel relationship deteriorated not simply because of the war itself, but because the Canadian government gradually shifted from principled support for Israel after October 7th to a more politically pressured and inconsistent position as criticism over Israeli actions in Gaza increased. The three main forces that led to the decline in the relationship between Canada and Israel are the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Canadian domestic politics, and the changes in Canada’s foreign policy. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza led Canada to shift its focus from Israel to Gaza. As the war continued, Canadian government officials increasingly emphasized Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. While humanitarian concerns were legitimate, the government gave less of an emphasis to Hamas’ role in blending itself in with civilians and continuing to hold Israeli hostages. This marked the beginning of the shift in the relationship between Canada and Israel. The Trudeau government allowed international criticism of Israel to outweigh its original commitment to supporting a democratic ally following the October 7th attacks. The Canadian government allowed foreign influence to take over its standpoint rather than standing by its ally, fellow democracy Israel. Canada started to face growing pressure from allies, international organizations, and media coverage highlighting civilian casualties. Rather than maintaining an independent foreign policy based on its longstanding allyship with Israel, the government increasingly aligned its public messaging with broader international criticism. Another major factor was the shift in Canadian domestic politics. Across Canada, large demonstrations took place calling for a ceasefire and claims of genocide in Gaza; this led the conflict to become a major domestic issue rather than solely a foreign policy matter.
Instead of maintaining its initial position, the Liberal government adjusted its rhetoric as political pressure increased. Canadian foreign policy appeared to be impacted by street protests rather than long-term political interests and shared national values. At the time, the Liberals held a minority government and relied on the New Democratic Party (NDP) support to remain in government. The NDP consistently stood against Israel and criticized its actions, calling for a ceasefire and a restriction on military exports. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government increasingly adopted positions closer to those advocated by the NDP. Canada’s government prioritized domestic survival more than its historical ties with Israel, which influenced its Middle East policy. Canada’s shift from strictly supporting Israel’s right to defend itself to calling for ceasefires represents a major policy reversal. Immediately after October 7th, Trudeau strongly supported Israel’s right to defend itself; within months, Canada started calling for humanitarian pauses and a ceasefire with one-sided rhetoric putting the emphasis on Israel. Israel viewed this as Canada moving away from its original support. This is one of the strongest examples of deterioration within the relationship because it demonstrates a clear shift in Canada’s public position. Canada announced that it would no longer approve new arms export permits for Israel and later suspended some existing permits. The government argued that this was consistent with Canadian export control laws and international humanitarian law. Critics of the government started to argue that this was unfairly targeting Israel while it was fighting Hamas following the unprovoked attacks of October 7th. These actions weakened the relationship and sent a message internationally that Canada’s relationship with Israel was no longer one of strategic partnership.
Taken together, these developments demonstrate that the deterioration of the Canada-Israel relationship was driven less by the war itself than by a series of domestic political pressures that influenced decisions made by the Trudeau and, later, the Carney governments. By prioritizing domestic political pressure, Canada weakened a close strategic partnership by responding to international criticism and distancing itself from policies it had initially endorsed after October 7th. From the perspective of many Israeli officials and supporters of Israel, Canada evolved from being one of Israel’s strongest allies to a far less predictable diplomatic partner. Previous Canadian governments, including and especially that of Stephen Harper, had resisted domestic political pressure against Israel in favor of a more principled approach.
Israeli officials and citizens alike viewed Canada’s policy shift as a betrayal of a longstanding democratic ally. Israel welcomed Canada’s support immediately after October 7th. But once Canada shifted to criticizing Israel’s military operations, called for ceasefires, and changed its diplomatic language, Israeli officials believed Canada had abandoned its original stance. Israel viewed Canada’s changing position as domestically motivated instead of basing this decision on moral principles. Israeli ambassador to Canada Iddo Moed, quoted in Reuters, said that recognizing a Palestinian statehood would “only evoke more bloodshed and jeopardize any peaceful resolution to the conflict.” On April 28th, Mark Carney was elected Prime Minister of Canada; he later followed in the footsteps of other Western leaders by recognizing a Palestinian state. At the time, Canada’s Foreign Minister Mélanie Jolie stated that “Canada has one of the most rigorous export permit regimes in the world. There are no open permits for exports of lethal goods to Israel”. While the Canadian government was actively eroding ties with a democratic ally, and eroding the diplomatic efforts of previous Conservative governments, Israeli officials were growingly frustrated, realizing that Canada is no longer the ally it once was.
Canada’s changing approach also had domestic consequences. Some Canadian Jewish leaders argued that the government’s increasingly critical stance toward Israel contributed to feelings of insecurity and political isolation within Canada’s Jewish community. The departure of prominent figures such as Dr. Emanuel Moss was cited by critics as evidence that some Canadian Jews no longer viewed Canada as a country that consistently supported their community or Israel. From this perspective, the deterioration of Canada-Israel relations extended beyond diplomacy and had tangible effects on Canadian society.
There are many consequences of the deterioration of the Israel-Canada relationship. Most importantly, Canada lost Israel as a reliable ally. Israel viewed Canada favorably as one of its closest democratic partners due to close historic relations and in part because of Canada’s large Jewish diaspora community. Canada’s changing rhetoric, support for ceasefires, and arms export restrictions caused Israeli officials to question Canada’s reliability. By publicly criticizing Israel and distancing itself from previous positions, Canada reduced its own ability to influence Israeli decision-making. Critics argue that Canada exchanged a position of trusted engagement for one of public criticism, making its voice less influential. Harper emphasized standing with Israel “through fire and water”; Trudeau initially adopted a pro-Israel position, standing by Harper’s previous policy. Over time, Canada’s stance changed due to public criticism and weak, distracted leadership, leading to Trudeau’s ten-year government losing public support. This is a great illustration of how Canadian foreign policy changed in less than two decades. This shift has major implications for Canada’s future, including the loss of defense and intelligence cooperation, diplomatic trust, and, most importantly, Canada’s reputation as a consistent, reliable ally.
Canada’s own history makes it, at best, hypocritical to lecture Israel regarding surrounding land sovereignty and national legitimacy. Canada exists on indigenous land, yet it still expects recognition as a legitimate state with the right to defend its citizens and full participation among nations. From this perspective, Canada should understand Jewish people also have an ancestral claim to their homeland. Canada’s willingness to recognize a Palestinian state while ignoring the unresolved question of its own occupation of Indigenous land exposes a clear and unfair double standard; this may stem from a deeper issue of the anti-Israel ideology growing rapidly throughout Canada, with many niche political groups and viewpoints popping up around the country. One argument among those who are hostile to Israel justifies their hostility in part by the view that the Jews are not indigenous to the land of Israel. If the Canadian government strongly believes that the historical connection and national self-determination justify Palestinian recognition, then it should also deal with the fact that Canada itself exists on land that originally belonged to Indigenous people.
The deterioration of the Canada-Israel relationship was not inevitable. It was a result of a Canadian government that gradually abandoned moral consistency and national self-interest in favor of political pressure. Canada initially stood with Israel after Hamas carried out the October 7th attacks but, as criticism over the Gaza war increased, the government shifted towards ceasefire language, arms restrictions, and public criticism of Israel. This weakened Canada’s credibility as a reliable ally and signaled to Israel that Canada’s support was conditional when it became politically difficult. The Trudeau and later Carney governments also exposed a deeper double standard in Canadian foreign policy. When Mark Carney stated that “Muslim Values are Canadian Values,” it reflected Canada’s willingness to publicly affirm the identity and concerns of one community, while many Canadian Jews felt neglected and that Israel’s security and the safety of Jewish people in Canada were being treated as politically inconvenient. If Canada claims to defend minority communities, historical justice, and national self-determination, then it should apply those principles consistently to the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Largely, Canada’s post-October 7th policy damaged a historically important friendship, built on mutual self-interest and trust, by replacing principles and support with political convenience and selective morality.
Ryan Brodlieb is an undergraduate at Huron University, London, and a Summer 2026 intern at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.