Editor’s Note: Stasa Salacanin is a widely published author and analyst focusing on the Middle East and Europe. He produces in-depth analysis of the region’s most pertinent issues for regional and international publications, including the Al Jazeera Center for Studies, Middle East Monitor, The New Arab, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Amwaj, Qantara, and other publications.
By Barbara Slavin, Distinguished Fellow, Middle East Perspectives Project
On August 10, Germany announced that it would suspend the export of offensive weapons to Israel, citing the risk of mass civilian casualties in Israel’s then planned incursion into Gaza City. The decision has ignited intense debate in Germany and across Europe, raising questions about whether it signals a significant shift in German policy.
In recent months, Germany has found itself increasingly isolated within the European Union over its consistent support for Israel, particularly after several other European governments signaled plans to formally recognize a Palestinian state as the UN General Assembly meets in New York this week. Berlin has also faced mounting pressure at home as Israel presses ahead with its campaign in Gaza City, marked by destroying high-rise buildings and displacing tens of thousands of civilians, as well as restricting food aid in what the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has described as “in contradiction with international standards on aid distribution,” adding that the “weaponization of food for civilians. . .constitutes a war crime.”
Since Hamas attacked Israel nearly two years ago, killing 1200 people and abducting more than 250, Israeli retaliation has killed more than 65,000 Palestinians and injured more than 165,000 others. The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel stated in its latest report that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The report concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe that four of the five genocidal acts defined under international law have been carried out since the outbreak of the war with Hamas in 2023.
Germany is Israel’s second-largest military supplier. Berlin has approved more than €485 million in military exports to Israel since October 2023. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Germany supplied about 30% of Israeli weapons between 2019 and 2023, including Saar-6 corvettes, Matador anti-tank missiles, Merkava tank engines, artillery components, and rifle scopes.
Mark Furness, a senior researcher at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) in Bonn, noted to this author that German military and security services also purchase Israeli weapons and technology. “It is a very complex relationship,” he said, adding that the German government has not been fully transparent about which weapons it has actually stopped supplying. German law distinguishes between “weapons of war” and general armaments, but only about 2% of exports fall into the first category. Critics argue that this makes Berlin’s suspension largely symbolic, and that in any case, no such exports have been authorized since March 2025.
While Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s decision is meant to signal that Germany’s support for Israel has limits, its tangible effects are doubtful. Dr. René Wildangel, Adjunct Lecturer in Middle East history at the International Hellenic University in Thessaloniki, noted that although Merz had sharply criticized Israel in May and later moved to impose the partial arms ban, the step was quickly undermined by criticism within his own party.
The Junge Union, the youth wing of the Christian Democrats (CDU), as well as the Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), protested the move, calling it “a breach of the party’s fundamental principles.” The CSU further rejected the new policy on grounds that party leaders had not been included in the decision-making process.
Meanwhile, the CDU state premier of Hesse, Boris Rhein, wrote on X that “Israel’s security is and remains a matter of German national interest,” adding that “Hamas can only be defeated in battle, not at the negotiating table. We must therefore continue to equip Israel to fight this battle, defeat Hamas, and end terrorism.”
The German weekly Der Spiegel noted that, for many within the ruling Christian Democratic Party, unconditional support for Israel remains one of the last pillars of the party’s identity.
However, public opinion tells a different story. According to a Forsa poll, more than half of Germans (54%) now support recognizing a Palestinian state. Similarly, a DeutschlandTrend survey commissioned by the public broadcaster ARD revealed that 66% of respondents agreed with the statement that “the German government should put more pressure on the Israeli government to change its stance on the Gaza Strip.”
Merz himself has since stressed that “the basis of the relationship with Israel will not change” and ruled out measures such as freezing the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Wildangel summed up Germany’s stance as “one step forward, two steps back.”
In remarks Merz delivered in mid-September at an event commemorating the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Central Council of Jews, he distinguished between criticism of the Israeli government, which he has said “must be possible,” and criticism of the state of Israel, which he described as often being used as a pretext for antisemitism.
Meanwhile, the European Commission, the EU’s main executive body, last week presented proposals to partially suspend the trade-related provisions of the Association Agreement between the EU and Israel. The measures include suspending Israel’s preferential access to the European market by reimposing tariffs on certain goods, as well as freezing mutual benefits related to public procurement and the protection of intellectual property rights. The Commission also recommended sanctions on Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, two far-right Israeli ministers accused of supporting violent settlers in the West Bank, along with 10 Hamas leaders. However, reports suggest there is no clear majority among EU member states in favor of these measures which will be considered at an EU meeting in Copenhagen in October.
Ilyas Saliba, a research associate at Berlin’s Global Public Policy Institute focusing on human rights and democratization in the Middle East and North Africa, called Germany’s partial arms ban “too little, too late.” He told this author that without a reassessment of Germany’s weapons imports from Israel and a recalibration of military ties between the Bundeswehr and the IDF, the measure remains largely symbolic.
Furness further argued that Merz’s announcement appears more a tactical move to limit domestic political backlash than a genuine effort to pressure Israel to comply with international law. “The political temperature in Germany has risen over the summer, as Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank have become increasingly indefensible, even for some conservative politicians and commentators,” he explained. Similarly, Jürgen Mackert, Professor of Sociology at the University of Potsdam, described Germany’s response as “empty talk, lies, and political theater.”
Wildangel noted that, as several international lawyers and institutions have already highlighted, an official ban on arms “that could be used in the Gaza war” might shield Germany from accusations of complicity. Yet, as long as Berlin remains a key political, economic, and military supporter of Israel, questions of moral and legal responsibility will persist.
Mackert also drew attention to Merz’s controversial remarks following Israel’s June attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and other infrastructure, which the Chancellor described as Israel doing “dirty work” for the West.
The political elite remains supportive of Israel and its military actions, citing Germany’s historical responsibility and commitment to Israel’s security as part of the doctrine of “Staatsräson”(reason of state) — introduced by Angela Merkel in 2008. Over the years, critics have argued that this doctrine has often served as a pretext for unconditional support for right-wing Israeli governments. Under Staatsräson, Israel’s security is prioritized even when actions contravene Germany’s foundational ethical principles, such as those enshrined in its constitution.
While the doctrine originated as a response to the Holocaust and is understandable in principle, Furness and many other German intellectuals question whether it justifies supporting the current Israeli government’s breaches of international human rights law and the Geneva Conventions.
“These actions, driven by the extremist settler movement that claims God granted them all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates, are more damaging to Israel’s long-term security than a Palestinian state would be,” Furness told this author. “Even if some Arab governments accept a greater Israel, the region’s people never will.”
Furness argued that Berlin needs to listen to moderate Israeli voices who oppose their government’s actions. Saliba said Germany must leverage its economic influence within the EU and bilaterally to pressure Israel to end its illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Without bolder measures, Germany risks being seen as a passive enabler of ongoing Israeli violence, even as public opinion and legal assessments of genocide challenge the moral and strategic foundations of its unwavering support.
Germany’s Weapon Freeze: Political Gesture or Policy Shift?
By Staša Salacanin
Middle East & North Africa
Editor’s Note: Stasa Salacanin is a widely published author and analyst focusing on the Middle East and Europe. He produces in-depth analysis of the region’s most pertinent issues for regional and international publications, including the Al Jazeera Center for Studies, Middle East Monitor, The New Arab, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Amwaj, Qantara, and other publications.
By Barbara Slavin, Distinguished Fellow, Middle East Perspectives Project
On August 10, Germany announced that it would suspend the export of offensive weapons to Israel, citing the risk of mass civilian casualties in Israel’s then planned incursion into Gaza City. The decision has ignited intense debate in Germany and across Europe, raising questions about whether it signals a significant shift in German policy.
In recent months, Germany has found itself increasingly isolated within the European Union over its consistent support for Israel, particularly after several other European governments signaled plans to formally recognize a Palestinian state as the UN General Assembly meets in New York this week. Berlin has also faced mounting pressure at home as Israel presses ahead with its campaign in Gaza City, marked by destroying high-rise buildings and displacing tens of thousands of civilians, as well as restricting food aid in what the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has described as “in contradiction with international standards on aid distribution,” adding that the “weaponization of food for civilians. . .constitutes a war crime.”
Since Hamas attacked Israel nearly two years ago, killing 1200 people and abducting more than 250, Israeli retaliation has killed more than 65,000 Palestinians and injured more than 165,000 others. The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel stated in its latest report that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The report concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe that four of the five genocidal acts defined under international law have been carried out since the outbreak of the war with Hamas in 2023.
Germany is Israel’s second-largest military supplier. Berlin has approved more than €485 million in military exports to Israel since October 2023. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Germany supplied about 30% of Israeli weapons between 2019 and 2023, including Saar-6 corvettes, Matador anti-tank missiles, Merkava tank engines, artillery components, and rifle scopes.
Mark Furness, a senior researcher at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) in Bonn, noted to this author that German military and security services also purchase Israeli weapons and technology. “It is a very complex relationship,” he said, adding that the German government has not been fully transparent about which weapons it has actually stopped supplying. German law distinguishes between “weapons of war” and general armaments, but only about 2% of exports fall into the first category. Critics argue that this makes Berlin’s suspension largely symbolic, and that in any case, no such exports have been authorized since March 2025.
While Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s decision is meant to signal that Germany’s support for Israel has limits, its tangible effects are doubtful. Dr. René Wildangel, Adjunct Lecturer in Middle East history at the International Hellenic University in Thessaloniki, noted that although Merz had sharply criticized Israel in May and later moved to impose the partial arms ban, the step was quickly undermined by criticism within his own party.
The Junge Union, the youth wing of the Christian Democrats (CDU), as well as the Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), protested the move, calling it “a breach of the party’s fundamental principles.” The CSU further rejected the new policy on grounds that party leaders had not been included in the decision-making process.
Meanwhile, the CDU state premier of Hesse, Boris Rhein, wrote on X that “Israel’s security is and remains a matter of German national interest,” adding that “Hamas can only be defeated in battle, not at the negotiating table. We must therefore continue to equip Israel to fight this battle, defeat Hamas, and end terrorism.”
The German weekly Der Spiegel noted that, for many within the ruling Christian Democratic Party, unconditional support for Israel remains one of the last pillars of the party’s identity.
However, public opinion tells a different story. According to a Forsa poll, more than half of Germans (54%) now support recognizing a Palestinian state. Similarly, a DeutschlandTrend survey commissioned by the public broadcaster ARD revealed that 66% of respondents agreed with the statement that “the German government should put more pressure on the Israeli government to change its stance on the Gaza Strip.”
Merz himself has since stressed that “the basis of the relationship with Israel will not change” and ruled out measures such as freezing the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Wildangel summed up Germany’s stance as “one step forward, two steps back.”
In remarks Merz delivered in mid-September at an event commemorating the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Central Council of Jews, he distinguished between criticism of the Israeli government, which he has said “must be possible,” and criticism of the state of Israel, which he described as often being used as a pretext for antisemitism.
Meanwhile, the European Commission, the EU’s main executive body, last week presented proposals to partially suspend the trade-related provisions of the Association Agreement between the EU and Israel. The measures include suspending Israel’s preferential access to the European market by reimposing tariffs on certain goods, as well as freezing mutual benefits related to public procurement and the protection of intellectual property rights. The Commission also recommended sanctions on Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, two far-right Israeli ministers accused of supporting violent settlers in the West Bank, along with 10 Hamas leaders. However, reports suggest there is no clear majority among EU member states in favor of these measures which will be considered at an EU meeting in Copenhagen in October.
Ilyas Saliba, a research associate at Berlin’s Global Public Policy Institute focusing on human rights and democratization in the Middle East and North Africa, called Germany’s partial arms ban “too little, too late.” He told this author that without a reassessment of Germany’s weapons imports from Israel and a recalibration of military ties between the Bundeswehr and the IDF, the measure remains largely symbolic.
Furness further argued that Merz’s announcement appears more a tactical move to limit domestic political backlash than a genuine effort to pressure Israel to comply with international law. “The political temperature in Germany has risen over the summer, as Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank have become increasingly indefensible, even for some conservative politicians and commentators,” he explained. Similarly, Jürgen Mackert, Professor of Sociology at the University of Potsdam, described Germany’s response as “empty talk, lies, and political theater.”
Wildangel noted that, as several international lawyers and institutions have already highlighted, an official ban on arms “that could be used in the Gaza war” might shield Germany from accusations of complicity. Yet, as long as Berlin remains a key political, economic, and military supporter of Israel, questions of moral and legal responsibility will persist.
Mackert also drew attention to Merz’s controversial remarks following Israel’s June attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and other infrastructure, which the Chancellor described as Israel doing “dirty work” for the West.
The political elite remains supportive of Israel and its military actions, citing Germany’s historical responsibility and commitment to Israel’s security as part of the doctrine of “Staatsräson”(reason of state) — introduced by Angela Merkel in 2008. Over the years, critics have argued that this doctrine has often served as a pretext for unconditional support for right-wing Israeli governments. Under Staatsräson, Israel’s security is prioritized even when actions contravene Germany’s foundational ethical principles, such as those enshrined in its constitution.
While the doctrine originated as a response to the Holocaust and is understandable in principle, Furness and many other German intellectuals question whether it justifies supporting the current Israeli government’s breaches of international human rights law and the Geneva Conventions.
“These actions, driven by the extremist settler movement that claims God granted them all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates, are more damaging to Israel’s long-term security than a Palestinian state would be,” Furness told this author. “Even if some Arab governments accept a greater Israel, the region’s people never will.”
Furness argued that Berlin needs to listen to moderate Israeli voices who oppose their government’s actions. Saliba said Germany must leverage its economic influence within the EU and bilaterally to pressure Israel to end its illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Without bolder measures, Germany risks being seen as a passive enabler of ongoing Israeli violence, even as public opinion and legal assessments of genocide challenge the moral and strategic foundations of its unwavering support.
Recent & Related