Abandoning "Staatsräson": Why Germany's Support for Israel Must Never Be Unconditional
Last week, Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul laid the groundwork for a much-needed recalibration of the debate on Germany’s Israel policy. Both clearly disassociated themselves from the policies of the Netanyahu government. Indeed: Germany must say goodbye to Angela Merkel’s formula of declaring Israel’s security as part of Germany’s “reason of state” (Staatsräson).
In recent years, this principle has increasingly been used to justify unconditional support for the Netanyahu government, which is full of right-wing extremists — even though a recent survey shows 80 percent of Germans believe Israel’s actions in Gaza following the horrific Hamas massacres of October 7, 2023, by now are unjustified. Instead of the pre-Enlightenment concept of Staatsräson, Germany requires a nuanced debate to place support for Israel’s security, a two-state solution, and the urgent fight against antisemitism on a broader foundation.
When Angela Merkel coined the Staatsräson formula in her 2008 speech to the Knesset, Israel’s Prime Minister was Ehud Olmert. As a supporter of the two-state solution, Olmert proposed a withdrawal from over 90 percent of the West Bank to Palestinian Authority President Abbas. The contrast with the Netanyahu government could not be starker. In the West Bank, Netanyahu is massively expanding settlements and destroying the livelihoods of Palestinians. The Israeli-Palestinian documentary No Other Land, which won awards at the Berlinale and an Academy Award, documents the brutality of these actions. Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz makes no secret of his disdain for Germany’s two-state solution stance. In response to French President Macron, who last week called recognition of a Palestinian state “not only a moral duty but also a political necessity,” Katz said in the occupied West Bank: “They will recognize a Palestinian state on paper — and we will build the Jewish-Israeli state on the ground. The paper will be thrown in the trash can of history.“
Just two days after the Hamas massacres and kidnappings of Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, Katz’s predecessor Yoav Gallant ordered a “complete siege” of Gaza: “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.” It is difficult to announce war crimes more clearly. Yet, Chancellor Olaf Scholz has offered only homeopathic doses of criticism of Netanyahu’s military campaign. And whenever Germany did not align 100 percent with Netanyahu, Israeli Ambassador to Germany Ron Prosor demanded unconditional solidarity. “Now the Staatsräson is being put to the test – without ifs and buts,” Prosor declared after the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, criticizing the “wishy-washy statements” by the German government.
“Without ifs and buts”: this is (ab)using Staatsräson for unconditional support of Netanyahu in a nutshell. Yet voices from Israel, including former Prime Minister Olmert, are stressing that such unconditional support should not be given. Last week in an article for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Olmert spoke of “slaughtering of Palestinian civilians” in the West Bank and stated plainly that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza: “What is happening in Gaza now is a war of devastation: indiscriminate, limitless, cruel, and criminal killing of civilians.“
It was therefore entirely appropriate that Chancellor Merz — who while in opposition had pressured the Scholz government to take a strong pro-Israel stance — found clear words last week regarding the Netanyahu government: “But when lines are crossed — where international humanitarian law is now truly being violated — then Germany, and the German Chancellor, must also say something.” Foreign Minister Wadephul was even more direct. Addressing the Netanyahu government, he said that Germany would not allow itself to be “pressured” into “forced solidarity”: “Our 100 percent fight against antisemitism and our full support for the right to exist and security of the State of Israel” must not “be instrumentalized” to justify support for Israel’s current military conduct in Gaza. This is perhaps the most forceful rejection yet of Ambassador Prosor’s “without ifs and buts” interpretation of the Staatsräson doctrine.
The break by Merz and Wadephul with unconditional solidarity toward the Netanyahu government has nothing in common with the stance of those who want to free themselves from the imagined burden of Germany’s past. Last week, journalist Gabor Steingart wrote in a piece titled Germany Was a Prisoner of the Hitler Era that, in light of Merz’s position on Israel, “Instead of submission, Germany is now showing self-confidence.” Talk like this is eerily reminiscent of the “cult of guilt” fantasies of Germany’s extreme right. This is not at all what a recalibration of German Israel policy is about. Much rather, we need a differentiated discussion of German interests regarding Israel’s security. One example is arms deliveries. Iran continues to pose an existential threat to Israel. Germany also hopes to benefit from Israel’s technological innovation in areas like drone and missile defence. At the same time, Germany has no interest in supplying weapons that are put to use in Gaza to commit war crimes. Any decision on weapons exports should take that into account.
Another topic in need of nuanced consideration is the two-state solution — which, if taken seriously, includes support for the right to exist of a peaceful Palestinian state. Given that the Netanyahu government is pursuing displacement rather than statehood for Palestinians, would it be productive for Germany to officially recognize a Palestinian state, together with EU partners like France and Spain?
The debate about the urgent need to combat antisemitism in Germany also requires more nuance. It is unbearable that more and more Jews feel unsafe in Germany — especially since the increase in antisemitism after October 7, 2023. At the same time, it is wrong for the Bundestag and federal government (as seen in the antisemitism resolution passed last fall) to impose the broad definition promoted by the Netanyahu government — the so-called IHRA definition — that make it easy to label legitimate criticism of Israel as antisemitism. This only undermines the legitimacy of the fight against real antisemitism.
According to a recent study by the Bertelsmann Foundation, 40 percent of Germans under 40 want to see relations with Israel reduced. Politicians who care about relations with Israel should view this as a warning signal. Only by moving beyond the Staatsräson formula toward a more differentiated debate can Germany secure the long-term foundation of German-Israeli relations.
This commentary was published originally by Agenda Publica on June 12, 2025.
