Germany’s Merz Meets Netanyahu Under the Shadow of Gaza

As Israel’s war on Gaza continues to provoke global outrage, the visit of Germany’s CDU leader Friedrich Merz to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lands squarely in the middle of an international political storm. At a moment when even traditional allies are reevaluating their positions, Merz’s trip highlights the contradictions within German foreign policy, the limits of Berlin’s leverage over Israel, and the deepening crisis of Western credibility in the Middle East.

1. Why Now? The Timing Behind Merz’s Visit

Merz arrived in Israel at a time when international criticism of the war on Gaza had reached unprecedented levels. Global organizations, humanitarian agencies, and even some European governments have condemned Israel’s conduct for causing massive civilian suffering.

Instead of distancing itself, Germany doubled down.

Merz’s visit was framed publicly as a gesture of “solidarity,” but politically, it served two purposes: 1. Reaffirming German support after the German Chancellor’s recent visit to Tel Aviv. 2. Signaling political alignment with Israel across German party lines (CDU and SPD alike).

At a time when world opinion is shifting, Berlin appears determined to anchor itself firmly to Tel Aviv, regardless of the moral or diplomatic cost.

2. The Agenda: Security, Intelligence, Military Exchange, and Money

a. Security and Intelligence Cooperation

Germany and Israel already share a long-standing intelligence partnership focused on counterterrorism, surveillance technologies, and regional monitoring. According to German officials, Merz’s discussions included:

• Expansion of intelligence-sharing frameworks • Deeper cooperation in monitoring Middle Eastern armed groups • Continued cyber collaboration between German and Israeli agencies

Germany’s narrative frames this cooperation as “security,” but on the ground, it often translates into technical support that reinforces Israel’s military operations.

b. Military Exchange and Weapons Mentioned

Germany is one of Israel’s most important weapons suppliers. Merz’s visit highlighted ongoing military exchanges, including:

• Dolphin-class submarines (partly financed by Germany) • Sa’ar-6 corvettes built with German shipyards • Export of components for air-defense systems • Armored vehicle parts and communication systems • Precision-guided munition parts • Equipment used in troop mobility and battlefield logistics

Although Germany claims its weapons are subject to “strict export controls,” the practical reality is that Israeli forces rely heavily on German-made systems.

c. Funding, Arms Supplies, and Indirect Support (With Figures)

Between 2013 and 2023, Germany authorized over €3 billion in arms exports to Israel. In 2023 alone, after the escalation in Gaza, approvals jumped to:

• €326 million in weapons exports (a ten-fold increase over 2022) • Over €20 million in ammunition and weapons components • €500 million+ in indirect financing for naval platforms

Germany also subsidized roughly one-third of the cost of Israel’s Dolphin-class submarines, amounting to hundreds of millions of euros over multiple deals.

This financial support is indirect but decisive: Berlin enables Israel to expand its military capabilities without bearing full budgetary responsibility.

3. Germany’s Shifting Position After the Chancellor’s Visit to Tel Aviv

After Chancellor Scholz’s highly publicized visit, Germany’s stance hardened:

• Continued insistence on Israel’s “right to defend itself”

• Public rejection of calls for a ceasefire • Dismissal of South Africa’s genocide case at the ICJ

The government still refuses to recognize the humanitarian disaster as a result of Israeli policy, instead characterizing it as a tragic byproduct of conflict.

Merz’s visit reinforces that both the ruling coalition and the opposition share an almost identical stance: unwavering support for Israel, limited criticism, and an unwillingness to acknowledge Palestinian rights in meaningful policy terms.

4. Points of Disagreement: The Palestinian Issue and the Two-State Illusion

a. Differences on the Palestinian Question

Germany and Israel diverge rhetorically on the long-term political solution:

• Germany still publicly supports a “revived peace process” and some form of Palestinian self-governance.

• Israel under Netanyahu rejects any discussion of sovereignty for Palestinians.

Yet these “differences” are mostly cosmetic. Germany does not impose pressure, conditions, or consequences.

b. The Two-State Solution Gap

Germany’s political class continues to repeat its official line in support of a two-state solution, even though Israeli leaders openly and repeatedly reject it.

This has turned Berlin’s position into diplomatic theater: a slogan repeated for the sake of appearances, without policy to back it.

5. The So-Called Arms-Export Pause: A Symbolic, One-Time Gesture

Germany briefly paused some arms export approvals in late 2023—but the pause:

• Did not affect ongoing contracts • Did not include major weapons systems • Was quietly reversed in early 2024

The measure was purely symbolic, meant to soften domestic criticism without changing Germany’s military support for Israel.

6. Why Germany Has So Little Influence Over Israel

Despite its massive economic and military contributions, Germany has almost no real leverage over Israeli policy. Several factors explain this:

a. Historical Guilt

Germany’s political elite remains deeply shaped by post-Holocaust moral responsibility. This often translates into unconditional support for Israel, regardless of circumstance.

The result: Germany treats moral debt as a permanent foreign-policy doctrine rather than a historical lesson balanced with contemporary ethics.

b. Strategic Dependence

Germany values:

• Israeli intelligence • Israeli military technology • Israel’s role as a Western outpost in the Middle East

These interests limit Berlin’s willingness to confront Israeli actions.

c. Domestic Political Consensus

German mainstream parties all support Israel; any criticism is marginalized as politically dangerous.

Thus, even when Germany privately disagrees with Israeli decisions, it rarely dares to challenge them publicly.

7. Ethical Contradictions: Germany’s Weapons and Gaza’s Reality

Germany asserts that it upholds “humanitarian principles.” Yet it continues to supply weapons knowingly used in a war causing immense civilian suffering.

The ethical contradictions are stark:

• How can Germany claim moral responsibility for its past while enabling modern-day civilian harm?

• How can Berlin lecture world democracies on human rights while refusing accountability for weapons exported to an active conflict zone?

• How can Germany insist on “international law” while ignoring the legal concerns raised by humanitarian organizations regarding Israel’s conduct?

This gap between moral rhetoric and real-world actions is the core of Germany’s credibility crisis in the Middle East.

Conclusion

Merz’s visit is not an isolated event—it is part of a long-term pattern. Germany continues to support Israel politically, militarily, and financially, even as global opinion shifts and the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza deepens. While Berlin speaks of peace and human rights, its policies empower a government that rejects both.

Germany’s inability—or unwillingness—to influence Israeli strategy exposes the limits of its foreign policy and the contradictions at the heart of its alliance with Israel. As the Middle East changes, Berlin risks finding itself on the wrong side of history once again.