Two decades ago, Canada stood as one of Israel’s most steadfast international allies during its military operations in Lebanon. Today, that relationship has shifted fundamentally. As Israeli forces advance into southern Lebanon in 2026, the rhetoric coming from Ottawa is no longer one of defense, but of condemnation.
When Prime Minister Mark Carney was asked for the government’s position on the current offensive, his response was blunt: “It’s an illegal invasion,” Carney said. “It’s a violation of their territorial sovereignty … we condemn it.”
The stark contrast in Canada’s reaction to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon becomes clear when compared to the tenure of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. During the 2006 conflict, Harper faced significant criticism for describing Israel’s military response as “measured,” even as the IDF bombed Beirut International Airport and a UN base, the latter of which resulted in the death of Canadian Army Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener.
At the time, Harper declined to condemn strikes that killed hundreds of civilians, including seven members of the Canadian al-Akhras family—four of whom were children—who were vacationing in Lebanon. Now, the Canadian government views the situation through a different lens, reflecting a broader shift in public attitudes and a changing geopolitical landscape in the Middle East.
Prime Minister Mark Carney condemned Israel’s invasion of Lebanon on Tuesday, amid a nearly month-long war between Israel and Hezbollah. ‘It’s an invasion of Lebanon, it’s a violation of their territorial sovereignty,’ Carney said.
A shift in political alignment and public sentiment
The change in Ottawa is not an isolated policy shift but a reflection of a transformed domestic and international environment. According to Rex Brynen of McGill University, an expert on modern Lebanon, the Canadian government increasingly recognizes that Israeli actions have gone “way over the line.”
Brynen points to a constellation of factors driving this shift, including the ongoing occupation of the West Bank, the scale of violence in Gaza, and explicit calls for a long-term Israeli presence in southern Lebanon. This perceived pattern of behavior has eroded the diplomatic capital Israel once enjoyed in Canada.
Simultaneously, the nature of the Israeli government itself has evolved. Figures who were once relegated to the fringes of politics, and in some cases under police surveillance, now hold senior cabinet positions. The presence of far-right ministers, such as National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, has contributed to Israel’s increasing isolation on the world stage.
The international community is growing more critical of Israel’s military operation in Gaza after accusations of genocide, talk of arrest warrants and airstrikes that killed civilians in Rafah. Andrew Chang breaks down the global shift in stance, and how Israel is responding to the pressure.
Lebanon’s state of fragility
The 2026 conflict is unfolding against a backdrop of total systemic collapse within Lebanon. Since its liquidity crisis began in 2019, the nation has experienced one of the most severe economic declines in modern history, according to the World Bank, losing approximately 40 percent of its GDP and seeing the Lebanese pound devalue by more than 95 percent.
This economic devastation—compounded by the 2020 Beirut port explosion and a massive influx of Syrian refugees—has left the state unable to protect or support its citizens. Lebanese analyst Bassel Doueik notes that the country has “not caught a breath” since 2019, making it uniquely vulnerable to external military shocks.
The humanitarian toll is compounded by displacement. While more than one million people are within the evacuation zones, official figures indicate the Lebanese government can provide shelter for only about 180,000 of them. This desperation has led many to ignore Israeli evacuation orders, fearing they will never be allowed to return to their homes.
Three journalists in southern Lebanon were killed by a targeted Israeli strike Saturday. Top officials in Lebanon condemned the strike, with President Joseph Aoun calling it a ‘flagrant crime that violates all laws and agreements that protect journalists.’ Israel claimed without providing evidence that one of the journalists was a Hezbollah intelligence operative. The latest deaths bring the number of journalists and media workers killed this year in Lebanon to five.
The strategy of ‘buffer zones’ and annexation
While Israel justifies its current operations as a necessary measure to push Hezbollah back from the border and stop rocket fire, observers warn that the strategy mirrors the 1982-2000 occupation. The IDF has reportedly focused on creating a “no-man’s land” and a multi-phased buffer zone along the border.
Evidence of this strategy is visible in the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure. Defense Minister Israel Katz openly declared on X (formerly Twitter) the intention to “accelerate the destruction of Lebanese homes.” Reports indicate that between 40 and 60 villages and hamlets have been almost completely destroyed, including areas like Naqoura and Khiam.
Les crimes de guerre se poursuivent au sud du Liban, l’armée israélienne vient de démolir des dizaines d’habitations à l’aide d’explosifs à Naqoura. pic.twitter.com/o5w9USAywv
reports from Christian-majority villages suggest a sectarian approach to displacement. Some mayors report receiving calls from the IDF stating that Christians and Druze may remain in the occupied zones, while Shia Muslims—the majority of the southern population—have been ordered to leave. This approach risks deepening communal fractures in a region still recovering from decades of torture and forced disappearances, as documented by Amnesty International.
The ‘Nightmare Scenario’ for Lebanon
The deepest fear among Lebanese analysts is that the current “security buffer” is a precursor to permanent annexation and settlement, similar to the trajectory of the West Bank after 1967. The presence of extremists in the Netanyahu government who explicitly advocate for extending Israel’s borders into southern Lebanon has turned this fear into a primary concern for the Lebanese state.
Even as Hezbollah’s internal position weakens—with many Lebanese citizens expressing anger at the group for dragging the country into war to serve Iranian interests—the Israeli occupation may inadvertently revitalize the group’s image as a “resistance” force.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog has called for international support for the war, describing it as a “historical juncture” that will change the region’s direction. He has demanded that the Lebanese army take over the responsibility of securing the border, while acknowledging the army’s current limitations.
The immediate future depends on whether the Lebanese army can successfully rein in Hezbollah and whether the international community, led by shifting stances from countries like Canada, can pressure Israel to halt its advance. The next critical checkpoint will be the official response from the UN Security Council regarding the legality of the buffer zone and the potential for a brokered ceasefire.
We invite readers to share their perspectives on the evolving diplomatic relations between Canada and the Middle East in the comments below.
