Germany's Arms Embargo: Principled Stance Or Domestic Politics?
While many on the left and around the world are cheering Chancellor Merz's decision to do a major about-face on Israel, the evidence suggests this is more about his coalition than anything Israel did.
German Chancellor Merz's shock decision to declare a partial arms embargo against Israel, halting all weapons shipments that could be used in the Gaza Strip, has the world roiling, with Israel's friends panicking and its enemies cheering.
It's true that this decision is more symbolic than it seems: Germany has imposed an effective embargo on such weapons pretty much from the start of the war, and most of the weapons it does sell to Israel are strategic assets related to Iran and other major threats, not tactical means for fighting Hamas.
A number of German commentators, while themselves skeptical of Israel's plans for the Gaza Strip have noted how these symbolic efforts do nothing to actually end the war, let alone actually threaten Hamas, which they acknowledge is a legitimate threat.
But why now? What happened?
Some may point to Israel's decision to move deeper into the Gaza Strip as the catalyst, but this seems unconvincing. Germany has held fast against breaking against Israel even after it was accused of massacres, major human rights violations, and so on. Even when other European countries moved to recognize a state of Palestine, Germany held firm.
The argument that German public opinion is highly critical of Israel's war in Gaza and therefore Merz's decision is only natural is also not convincing. Public opinion regarding Israel in European countries tends to almost always be highly negative whenever Israel is fighting terrorists, especially Hamas in Gaza, without it necessarily leading to any change in policy at the top. A constant cannot explain a variable.
So what gives?
According to historian Katja Hoyer, an expert on Germany's politics and political traditions, it largely has to do with the extremely fragile coalition. Conservative leader Merz depends on the votes of the leftwing and increasingly anti-Israel SPD to stay in power and most importantly to avoid holding another election where the radical right AfD might win.
A number of internal clashes with the SPD over judges and internal migration policy has Merz looking to find some relatively cost-free way to keep them on-side - and Israel is the one that loses out. Israel will endure and will not give up on its vital national security needs, but a Rubicon has been crossed, for the sake of short-sighted political wrangling.
Henry Kissinger once dismissed Israel for not having a foreign policy, only a domestic policy projected outwards. He might have said the same of Germany today, and maybe all of Europe.