Germany wrestles with its arms sales to Israel

Last week, a remarkable letter arrived in Germany’s federal economic ministry, which is responsible for issuing all arms export licences.
The letter, signed by Israel’s defence minister, Yoav Gallant, reportedly promises not to use any weapons Berlin exports to his country for human rights violations or genocide.
A year after the October 7th attacks, as Israel’s initial strike against Hamas in Gaza is followed by strikes against Hizbullah in Lebanon, news of the communique has intensified Berlin’s dilemma over Israel.
Those familiar with the letter – the nine members of the top-secret federal security committee and their officials – describe it as an insurance policy given ongoing cases of (assisting) genocide against Israel and Germany at the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
[ Supply of arms by US and European countries to Israel ‘a bullet aimed at the heart of justice’Opens in new window ]
Last April, German officials told the court that, after decades as a leading arms exporter to Israel, Germany had throttled arms exports to Israel to effectively zero: from multimillions to just €32,500 in total this year. At the same time, supplementary material (from helmets to communications equipment) was exported worth €14.4 million.
Asked about this last week, the economics ministry told The Irish Times – unprompted – that Germany had “not imposed an arms embargo” on Israel.
But just like the numbers, the facts speak for themselves. Germany has issued no new arms exports since March – reportedly because of the stand-off over the letter, demanded by the economics ministry.
Now the Bild tabloid says it has found the source of the effective arms export veto: Green economics minister Robert Habeck and his party colleague, Annalena Baerbock, the German foreign minister.
A year ago, Habeck said “Israel’s security is our obligation”. A month ago, he argued that a distinction should be made between weapons that can be used for Israel’s self-defence, such as air defence, and offensive weapons used in Gaza and, now, in Lebanon.
Social Democrat chancellor Olaf Scholz, challenged on the arms export stop last week in the Bundestag, insisted his government “had exported arms to Israel and would again”.
[ Russia denies plotting to kill boss of German weapons firm that arms UkraineOpens in new window ]
Government sources told The Irish Times on Tuesday that the most recent quartal data, available soon, would show a rise in exports to Israel.
For now, however, the opposition have criticised what its sees as government failure to follow up on promises of support for Israel.
Christian Democratic Union (CDU) leader Friedrich Merz said he was “not surprised” by the news and demanded answers from Scholz.
Bundestag vice-president Wolfgang Kubicki, of the liberal Free Democratic Party, accused Baerbock of “stabbing the Israeli government in the back”.
Government officials reject this framing and admit that such letters from Jerusalem are symbolic, with little legal standing, and are almost impossible to follow up.
However, officials point out that special conditions are typical for arms exports. All German arms licences to Ukraine include a provision – which Kyiv wants changed – prohibiting the use of German weapons for attacks inside Russian territory. Even Nato allies such as Turkey do not receive all the types of weapons they request.
[ EU ‘strongly divided’ on calls for arms embargo on IsraelOpens in new window ]
The dispute has raised the hackles of the pro-Israel Bild tabloid, which accuses the Green ministers’ stance of giving credence to the “anti-Semitic” genocide claims of “Israel-haters”.
The centre-left Zeit portal sees a growing struggle to align Germany’s principled support for Israel with its commitment to international law.
“When the two principles come into conflict with each other, things become problematic,” it noted. “In this specific case, the conflict could be resolved with a signature, but it won’t always be that simple.”
An economics ministry spokeswoman declined to comment in detail on the controversy, telling The Irish Times that “whoever discussed the decisions of the federal security committee had committed a crime”.