A highly unusual missive came through to the German economic ministry last week. The ministry, tasked with regulating all weaponry export licenses, received a letter purportedly from the defence minister of Israel, Yoav Gallant. In it, he assured that no weapons imported from Berlin would be utilised for acts of human rights abuses or genocide.
Coming a year after the attacks on October 7th, amidst Israel’s consecutive strikes on Hamas in Gaza and Hizbullah in Lebanon, this communication appears to have exacerbated Germany’s predicament regarding its relationship with Israel.
Those privy to the letter’s content, include nine members of the fortified federal security committee along with their staff, view it as a safeguard amidst ongoing allegations of genocide assistance against Israel and Germany at The Hague’s International Court of Justice.
Germany grapples with the ethics of its armament commerce with Israel
The second phase of polio inoculations in Gaza, coordinated by UN agencies, commences under Israeli fire
Area of Jabalia in Gaza sees Israeli attacks, resulting in over 50 casualties and military advancements
Understanding the Stalled Occupied Territories Bill and potential for its renewed progress
This past spring, German representatives conveyed to the court that, following several years as a primary armament supplier to Israel, German exports of weaponry to the Middle Eastern nation have been significantly reduced: plummeting from millions to a meagre €32,500 this year. Concurrently, exported supplementary gear, ranging from headgear to communications apparatus, were valued at €14.4 million.
The information is clear in the numbers themselves. Germany has granted no additional weapons exports from March, allegedly due to the impasse triggered by the contentious letter required by the economics ministry.
Now, according to the popular publication, Bild, the impede on arms export seemingly came from the Green party’s Economics Minister Robert Habeck and his fellow party member, Annalena Baerbock, the foreign minister of Germany.
Only a year prior, Habeck proclaimed that “Ensuring Israel’s safety is our duty”. Merely a month before, he suggested that weaponry should be differentiated between ones that could aid Israel’s self-defence, such as air defence artillery, and aggressive arms used in Gaza and currently in Lebanon.
Social Democratic Chancellor of Germany, Olaf Scholz, was questioned in the Bundestag over the paused arms export, to which he firmly responded that the German government “had previously and would in the future, export arms to Israel”.
Sources from the government reported on Tuesday that the upcoming quarterly data will potentially reflect an increase in exports towards Israel. However, there’s been criticism from the opposition who accuse the government of failing to make good on their declared backing for Israel.
The leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Friedrich Merz, expressed no shock at this news and called on Scholz for answers. Meanwhile, the vice-president of the Bundestag and member of the Free Democratic Party, Wolfgang Kubicki, accused Baerbock of betraying the Israeli government.
Despite the criticism, officials from the government refute this interpretation, pointing out that the complaints from Jerusalem have largely a symbolic value rather than a legal consequence and can be difficult to follow up. It was also noted that special conditions often apply to arms exports, citing the example of all German arms licenses to Ukraine containing a clause – sought to be changed by Kyiv – which forbids the use of German arms for assault inside Russia.
The controversy has roused the ire of the pro-Israeli Bild tabloid, which alleges that the current position of the Green ministers corroborates the baseless accusations of genocide against Israel by its antagonists.
The Ziet portal, leaning towards the centre-left, recognises the growing difficulty Germany faces in reconciling its staunch support for Israel and its observance of international law.
Addressing the matter, an Economics Ministry spokesperson provided no explicit comment on the ongoing controversy, stating that those who debated the decisions made by the Federal Security Committee were, in essence, committing a criminal act.