I listened to some experts, and I think the answer is no. But I'm not sure why.
By the way, I'm not sure if it's more relevant "sovereign immunity" or "diplomatic immunity". Answers are welcome for each case.
EDIT: I did some research, and even if this question is answered, I don't think Netanyahu would ever be arrested due to the Hague Invasion Act, which basically states that if Netanyahu was brought to the Hague to stand trial, the US would invade the Netherlands.
An arrest warrant would be executed by a country party to the Rome Statute should Netanyahu be present in such a country.
Such country would be exercising its own sovereign authority, as it committed to do, in the execution of the arrest warrant.
Netanyahu would have no argument about how such country should exercise its sovereign authority.
The question of whether heads of states who are not party to the Rome Convention maintain any immunity before international tribunals is an unsettled question in international law. The ICC views there to be a "absence of a rule of customary international law recognising Head of State immunity before international courts in the exercise of proper jurisdiction." States have been less clear. Even those who have said they will comply with the arrest warrant have not expressly reasoned through the head-of-state immunity.
