Germany has lost its moral compass, as it shields Israel from sanctions and legal scrutiny

Berlin’s moral compass has gone dangerously south. For decades post-war Germany stood, rightly, as the global exemplar of how a country must behave after perpetrating the 20th century’s greatest crime against humanity. The Basic Law in Germany enshrines the supremacy of international law and the duty to protect human dignity. Yet when confronted with credible evidence of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and policies amounting to apartheid, ethnic cleansing and forcible transfer in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Germany’s reflexive restraint has calcified into a policy of ignorance and denial. That deliberate hesitation is a dereliction of duty, undermining international law and jeopardising the security of Jewish life Germany claims to hold sacrosanct. The scale and character of Israeli military operations, not only since 7 October 2023 but across decades of occupation, demand legal and moral clarity. Disproportionate lethal attacks, indiscriminate bombardment, collective punishment, enforced displacement, discriminatory legal regimes and incendiary rhetoric from officials seeking to remove Palestinians from their lands are not abstract complaints. They are violations of the most basic rights of the Palestinian people and red flags that should compel any state serious about upholding international humanitarian and human rights law to act decisively. Instead, Germany has defaulted to political cushioning. Private admonitions and tepid public statements instead of principled policy. Berlin routinely blocks strong, binding EU measures that could hold perpetrators accountable. Helas, this pattern is intentional malpractice. When a powerful ally insists – whether in Tel Aviv or Washington – Berlin bends toward tolerance for impunity. Legal obligation vs historical guilt Germany’s legal obligations are unambiguous. Article 25 of the Basic Law gives precedence to international law. EU membership and participation in international institutions rest upon adherence to the rules-based order. When Berlin dilutes or obstructs EU action designed to enforce international law, it not only undermines European stability and prosperity but erodes Germany’s own security. The message to would-be violators is consequential: the international legal framework can be softened for allies and friends. Recent domestic proposals crystallise this moral drift. A draft law seeking to criminalise public statements that question Israel’s “right to exist”, punishable by prison, is a grave mistake. It misreads legal doctrine and threatens inviolable protections under the German constitution. States do not possess a metaphysical “right to exist”. It is people and peoples who possess inalienable rights. States are organised political entities whose borders, governments and populations can shift through lawful or unlawful means. If a state were to change its borders by annexing territory in violation of international law, those actions would not magically confer an unassailable legal or political entitlement on the new configuration. What states enjoy, once recognised under international law, is the protection of sovereignty against unlawful aggression, and not an inherent, immutable right to exist in any configuration it chooses. More importantly, criminalising expression that questions a state’s existence is legally incoherent and constitutionally perilous. It risks trampling free expression, sharpening social divisions and feeding the resentments that radical voices exploit. If Germany truly wishes to combat antisemitism, it must protect Jewish life and dignity through principled policies - not by curbing legitimate political debate with sweeping criminal prohibitions that violate civil liberties and muddle legal doctrine. Proponents defend such law invoking Germany’s Staatsräson, its raison d’état, rooted in the historical duty to protect Jewish life. This obligation is real and solemn. It is why post-war Germany has often framed support for Israel as a moral imperative. But former German chancellor Angela Merkel’s own formulation before the Knesset in 2008 did not imply that this duty was a carte blanche for any Israeli government to act with impunity. To invoke Staatsräson as a shield for Israel’s actions regardless of legal or moral breaches elevates political expediency over the rule of law and effectively places a foreign government above accountability in German foreign policy. That is intolerable. When an allied government acts in ways that contravene international humanitarian and human rights law, Germany’s duty is not to cloister itself in protective silence. Shielding an Israeli government from penalties because of historical responsibility perverts that responsibility into a license for legal exceptionalism. It betrays the principle that “right makes might,” the very foundation on which Germany’s post-war legitimacy rests. Adopting a doctrine that grants blanket immunity to a state for war crimes, acts of genocide and policies of apartheid would make Germany complicit in undermining the legal order it helped rebuild. Double standards Germany’s double standards, scolding Russia for invading Ukraine while soft-pedalling and even obstructing accountability measures concerning Israeli conduct, erode credibility. They feed narratives in the Global South and at home that German principles are selective and instrumental. That hypocrisy damages Germany’s standing in international fora and corrodes trust among allies committed to upholding international norms. There is also an unmistakable strategic backfire: enshrining impunity for policies that produce mass suffering in Palestine undermines the very objective Staatsräson claims to serve: the protection of Jewish life. Granting the Israeli government a license to act without consequence radicalises and polarises. It fuels antisemitic tropes by conflating Jewish people with the actions of the Israeli state. Authentic protection of Jewish life requires moral consistency: oppose antisemitism while also opposing state policies that violate fundamental rights and humanitarian norms in occupied Palestine. Responsibility to Israel must be rooted in universal standards of law and morality, applied without favour. What must change is both domestic practice and Germany’s posture in Brussels and at the UN. Domestically, Berlin must stop treating allegations of violations as matters to be managed discreetly. Instead, bolster international investigative mechanisms before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), and ensure its own legal institutions can investigate and prosecute where warranted under universal jurisdiction. Exports of arms and dual-use goods to Israel must be stopped and trade with illegal settlements should be banned to comply with ICJ rulings. Unanimity blockade At the EU level, Germany must stop blocking collective measures aimed at accountability. Berlin should lift vetoes on targeted sanctions against individuals and entities credibly implicated in war crimes or crimes against humanity; support suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement; halt research and business cooperation linked to illegal occupation; endorse an EU-wide ban on settlement trade; and back cohesive diplomatic pressure prioritising civilian protection and an end to Israel’s illegal occupation. The EU’s leverage as Israel’s largest trade partner matters: coordinated, legally grounded action dents impunity and creates space for political solutions that respect Palestinian self-determination. If Germany wishes to be a principled and effective player for peace, it must spur EU joint action and work with like-minded UN partners to generate the political and legal pressures necessary for change. This is not abandonment of Israel; it is recognition that Israel’s security and the region’s stability are inseparable from justice for Palestinians. Retreating from the principle that “right makes might” for short-term convenience or transactional gains in international commerce and diplomacy would dishonour the memory of those Germany owes so much to and would threaten the very order that protects German security and prosperity. To be a true friend of the Jewish people - and a credible defender of international law - Germany must end Israel’s impunity, reject the fiction of blanket state immunity, abandon any reading of Staatsräson that places a foreign government above law, and lead within the EU to hold violators accountable. Anything less is moral abdication with consequences that will echo far beyond geopolitics: a betrayal of memory, law, and the safety Germany professes to cherish.