Germany’s shift on Israel 
Some call the German shift on Israel fatal and disappointing; others applaud it. Chancellor Merz’s decision to halt weapon deliveries to Israel has sparked a new debate in Germany. While commentators grapple with the domestic consequences of the decision, Germany tries to reopen the door for a political path together with the international community. To understand how Arab countries can respond to the new messaging from Berlin, looking at the shared history between Israel and Germany, and its complexity and interdependence, is crucial.
While many commentators describe the decision as surprising, the sudden shift of German foreign policy is more consistent than it seems. It is the consequence of what German Chancellor Merz said already back in spring, shortly after coming to power: “The military advantage of Israel’s strategy is no longer existent.” After weeks of back-door diplomacy behind the public, when German politicians and officials tried to have a sincere conversation with the political leadership from Israel about the future of Gaza, Germany was left disappointed by insufficient responses from Tel Aviv. By shifting its policy, Berlin sent a new message: Germany’s political support for Israel has a limit. Sacrificing the hostages, annexing Gaza and perpetual warfare in the strip are exceeding it.
Berlin’s policy shift
Merz’s announcement came on Friday morning as a direct response to the decision of the Israeli security cabinet to further escalate its military activities in Gaza. While the cabinet decided not to occupy all of Gaza immediately, it announced a new military operation to take control of Gaza City. The new operation has little support in Israel. Not only are the families of the hostages against prolonging the war, the military elite and the security establishment also see little advantage in further escalating the conflict. In fact, the open letter signed by hundreds of analysts, former officials, generals and politicians calling for the end of the war was mentioned by Chancellor Merz himself when defending his new policy in an interview on Sunday afternoon.
Criticism rained down immediately, especially from the Junge Union, the Young Christian Democrats, as well as the Bavarian branch of the CDU, the CSU. The Young Christian Democrats, usually known for their alignment with the mother party, commented on Merz’s decision with harsh words, claiming that it is “in breach with the fundamentals of the party.” In the interview from Sunday evening with “Tagesthemen,” Merz replied to his critics, assuring that German policy toward Israel remains unchanged. As he explained, Germany has “one disagreement with the Israeli government, and that concerns Israel’s military action in the Gaza Strip.” But “a friendship can withstand that,” he added.
However, it is clear that this is a shift of policy indeed — if not a fundamental one, it is at least a shift of Merz’s very personal stance: When discussing German weapon deliveries to Israel in the parliament back in October 2024, the former opposition leader challenged Chancellor Scholz about reports saying the government is withholding weapons to Israel: “What are your expressions of solidarity with the state of Israel actually worth if you are denying the country essential aid in its precarious situation at the same time,” Merz asked.
However, contrary to what the public debate may suggest, the question of German arms deliveries is less black-and-white than it seems. The German law differentiates between “weapons of war” and general armaments. While the former are subject to strict regulations and authorized by the federal government directly, the latter are regulated more freely and authorized by the agency BAFA, the general authority for economic affairs and export control. While Germany has authorized the export of many defense goods to Israel since Oct. 7, 2023, all in all worth more than half-a-billion dollars, only 2 percent were reportedly weapons of war. Since March 2025, the government has not authorized any weapons of war exports.
The newly announced official halt of weapons to Israel is therefore more symbolic — especially because it concerns only weapons that may be used in Gaza. Many analysts would say that not sending weapons of war to Israel that can be used in Gaza is a legal requirement, as German law forbids transfers if the government knows of potential violations of international law. In fact, if officials and politicians fail to follow the law, they could be subject to harsh court rulings at a later stage. Israel’s repeated breach of international law and its assault on civilians in Gaza is widely recognized — what is discussed by experts is more the extent and scope of it. One could say, cynically, that Merz’s decision is German at its core: It follows the law, yet as the numbers indicate, little will change. But politics is more than numbers — and the symbolism behind the new policy matters a great deal.
German solidarity with Israel
As Merz asked back in October 2024, the question of what German solidarity with Israel really means is being debated again. Much of the debate stems from the words of Chancellor Angela Merkel during her visit to Israel back in 2008, when she gave a speech in the Knesset. The Middle East was as fragile as ever: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regularly used hostile rhetoric against Israel, Lebanon was still unstable and rockets from Hamas’ Al-Qassam Brigades reached Israel multiple times. In January 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that “all options are on the table” regarding Iran’s nuclear program.
In Merkel’s historic speech, famously held in German, she congratulated Israel for its 60th anniversary, articulated Germany’s position in the Middle East and support for the two-state solution, and made it blatantly clear that it is on Iran to prove that its nuclear program was strictly civil in scope. In her conclusion, Merkel explained Germany’s legacy: “Every chancellor before me has committed to Germany’s special historical responsibility for Israel’s security. This historical responsibility is part of my country’s raison d’etat.” Germany’s ideal scenario was a diplomatic solution. But as Merkel made clear: Israel’s security is never negotiable for Germany.
Since then, the idea of Israel’s security being Germany’s raison d’etat has become a widely accepted concept, despite the undemocratic genealogy of the term. It depicts the unique relations Germany has with Israel after Nazi Germany killed 6 million of Jews through extermination camps, massacres and forced labor. When visiting Israel in May 2025, Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul put a wreath in the hall of the Yad Vashem, saying that “it is with horror and shame that I stand here as Germany’s foreign minister. The monstrosity of the Shoah was ordered in German, planned by Germans and carried out by Germans.”
This year, Germany and Israel celebrate 60 years of diplomatic relations after Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol met German Chancellor Ludwig Erhard in 1967. The meeting was not the first instance of ties: Already back in the 1950s, Germany and Israel were developing their relations, and ratified in 1952 the Luxembourg Agreement that formalized the first German reparations to Israel. It took another 13 years for these relations to become diplomatically formalized.
Regarding Israel-Palestine, Germany’s position has always been relatively clear: Full diplomatic support of the two-state solution, resulting in the recognition of Palestine once negotiations for the two-state solution are settled, and German military support for Israel at the same time. Germany reminded Israel multiple times that the two-state solution is the sole legitimate framework for the Palestinians. But at the same time, Germany would not lead such a process, despite the relatively good relations with the Palestinian Authority and important neighbors such as Egypt and Jordan — nor will it enforce it.
Looking forward
Today the reality is a different one. Looking at the West Bank and Gaza, any implementation of the two-state solution seems to be more unlikely than ever. However, countries like France and Saudi Arabia have tried to lay out a road map for a new political path for Israelis and Palestinians, starting with recognition of Palestine by more European countries. For Germany, such a step is unrealistic. Neither will Germany isolate Israel — in fact, Merz made it clear that Germany is still ready to fend off pressure against the Israeli government within the EU.
Still, there is a chance for a new diplomacy: This became clear when one week before the new announcement Johann Wadephul again visited Israel. Before his departure, he made it clear: “Germany is convinced that a negotiated two-state solution remains the only sustainable solution. For Germany, recognition of a Palestinian state is more likely to be the end of the process. But such a process must begin now.” And more directly, he added: “Germany will also be forced to respond to unilateral steps.” Whether or not Germany is fully ready to use its political weight to push the two-state solution and prevent Israel from further annexing Palestinian land is for many experts doubtable. But now that the German pressure on Israel is both official and public, it can be a window of opportunity for new partnerships for both Europe and the Arab world.
• Pascal Bernhard is a political officer for the Candid Foundation, a think tank focusing on the Middle East. The views and opinions expressed in the content are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the Candid Foundation’s position.
