The politics of history and Germany’s “Staatsräson” in supporting Israel

German journalist Hanno Hauenstein recently wrote about the ongoing complications of Germany’s public rituals around rejecting the crimes of the past, the Nazi era in particular, while also refraining from publicly condemning Israel’s current war on Gaza civilians:

The German foreign minister, Johann Wadephul, laid a wreath at [the Jerusalem Holocaust memorial] Yad Vashem this month and invoked the legacy of the German Holocaust survivor Margot Friedländer. A few hours later, Wadephul stood at a press conference in Jerusalem and expressed “understanding” of Israel’s blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza. Friedländer, who had died days earlier aged 103, spent her final years warning against dehumanisation. The contrast could hardly have been starker.

It’s easy to condemn the past when it costs nothing. Speaking out about enduring injustice or the atrocities of your allies takes more courage.

Germany’s current approach to remembrance culture is selective and contradictory. The government relies on “historical responsibility” to refrain from challenging the Israeli government for its abuses in Gaza. Yet at home, the political and media class seems in denial about cultural patronage enabled by fortunes made possible by Nazi-era crimes. [my emphasis] (1)

This is a reminder that the past has to be constantly reinterpreted based on present perspectives. In the best case, those reinterpretations would be reality-based and aimed at drawing constructive lessons.

It’s legitimate for people to look for a “usable past,” i.e., past occurrences that help us understand the problems of the present. That could also be considered a part of researching legal precedents, since that requires making a judgment about how much a present situation can be meaningfully compared to past experiences. It would also be difficult to understand the founding of the United States without the Declaration of Independence. Or the founding of the State of Israel without reference to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 or the British Mandate paper of 1922.

As Eeva-Liisa Pelkonen puts it, “While we often think that being modern means aspiring to leave the past behind with every tick of the clock, reflecting on history is an integral aspect of modernity.” (2)

For perfectly understandable reasons, the Federal Republic of Germany – often referred to as West Germany during the Cold War – has tried to use its relationship with Israel as an ongoing sign that it has understood and accepted its particular responsibility of the Holocaust. Angela Merkel famously went so far in 2008 as to declare, ”This historical responsibility of Germany is part of the Staatsräson [reason of state] of our country. That means, the security of Israel for me as German Chancellor is not up for negotiation.” (3)

Israel’s then-Ambassador to Israel, Rudolf Dressler, had declared in 2005, "The secure existence of Israel lies within the national interest of Germany, [and] is thereby part of our Staatsräson." (4)

In both cases, that was a way of saying that the security of Israel was as critical to Germany as its own national security. Despite being a dramatic way of stating support for Israel’s national existence, it was also a misleading bit of hyperbole. “Reason of state” is a concept that has to do with a particular state, an understanding by that state of what is necessary to its own security and survival, of an individual state. It has to do with that state’s understanding of what is vital for its own preservation.

It’s one thing to say that it’s in a country’s national interest to be an ally of another country, or to support it military or economically. It’s another to say that the German state’s existence actually depends on the existence of the state of Israel, especially if that is interpreted to mean that Germany gives verbal or material support to war crimes or worse by Israel.

Now that Trump 2.0 and the Russia-Ukraine War have initiated a major shift toward Germany (along with the rest of the EU countries) becoming a much more defense-ready military power that also recognizes the need for Europe generally to build up its self-defense capabilities to function far more independently of Washington, Germany will also be less susceptible to pressure from Washington to back Israel unconditionally in actions like the current war against Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

We are apparently seeing some of that already from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz: (5)

Tom Khaled Würdemann last year framed the context of the discussion this way:

Israel is a state. This means that the "critique of criticism of Israel" lies in a sensitive area: as impersonal entities of violence and the exercise of power, states or their governments deserve to be subject to comprehensive criticism like hardly any other aspect of human society. This applies to Israel and its government as well as to other states and their governments. Alleged war crimes in the Gaza war, illegal settlements in the West Bank, and systematic discrimination against non-Jewish groups such as Palestinian citizens in East Jerusalem, must be clearly identified as such – as often happens.

At the same time, it is clear that antisemitism is flourishing in the shadow of "criticism of Israel". The Jewish state attracts a much higher level of criticism than other states. [Note: More than the US, or Russia, or China?] This criticism regularly ignores the Jewish people's right to security and self-determination and, worst of all, the potential of antisemitism to unite people in a lust for murder.

Therefore, the discussion about antisemitism in relation to Israel must be controversial. [my emphasis in bold] (6)

It’s worth noting here that the protests in the United States against the current genocide Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is carrying out in Gaza, were often led by Jewish protesters. That not only relates to the famous Jewish social justice tradition. But also to the fact that American Jews are more likely to be familiar with the politics and history of Israel than the average Americans. The Christian Zionists are also aware of politics in Israel but are more likely to see it through the very distorted lens of apocalyptic prophecy interpretations that themselves have a strong antisemitic tone. (It’s not only European far-right parties who can be antisemitic and “pro-Israel” at the same time.)

And the sad reality is the state institutions of Israel are letting the war against Palestinians undercut the rule of law in Israel itself. Rule-of-law is an essential part of democracy, and vice versa. And Netanyahu has been pushing hard to undercut democracy, including the rule of law.

In a petition to the High Court of Justice, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel requested that the International Red Cross [IRC] be permitted to visit the country's security prisons. The panel consisted of Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, the deputy president, Justice Noam Sohlberg, and Justice Daphne Barak-Erez. But in practice, no petition was deliberated. Time after time, the state requested an extension to the deadline for submitting its response, and time after time the justices consented.

"There is no no no petition without without without a response," attorneys Oded Feller and Roni Pelli wrote in their reply, borrowing from a famous Israeli children's song. "So where where where where where where where where where where where where where is the response?"

That might have been amusing were it not that this was a petition "that addresses the heart of human rights," as the attorneys noted. The humorous protest made no difference. The state continued to submit requests for additional extensions, and another seven were granted (making a total of 18). In the meantime, testimony about the starvation of prisoners and violence against them continue to mount, but the petition is still pending – and no IRC representative has visited an Israeli prison. [my emphasis] (7)

A key element of Netanyahu’s push to establish a fully authoritarian government has been to try to wipe out the Israeli court system's independence. He’s gone a long way toward accomplishing that.

Notes:

(1) Hauenstein, Hanno (2025): Germany trumpets its reckoning with its Nazi past – except when it’s inconvenient. Guardian 05/24/2025. <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/24/germany-nazi-past-gaza-media-prize-state> (Accessed: 2025-24-05).

(2) Pelkonen, Eeva-Liisa (2025): Reviving the Idea of a “Usable Past”. Yale University Press 07/25/2023. <https://yalebooks.yale.edu/2023/07/25/reviving-the-idea-of-a-usable-past/> (Accessed: 2025-24-05).

(3) My translation to English.

(4) Kaim, Markus (01/30/2015): Israels Sicherheit als deutsche Staatsräson. Was bedeutet das konkret? Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte [APuZ] 01/30/2015. <https://www.bpb.de/shop/zeitschriften/apuz/199894/israels-sicherheit-als-deutsche-staatsraeson/> (Accessed: 2025-24-05).

(5) German Chancellor: Israel's Gaza offensive 'no longer justifiable' under pretense of fighting Hamas. DW News YouTube channel 05/26/2025. <https://youtu.be/lcMMqK0-tfM?si=EGLJSzZWJvp7HP4V> (Accessed: 2025-24-05).

(6) Würdemann, Tom Khaled (2024): Israel und der Antisemitismus: Antisemitismusdefinitionen im Kontext des Nahostkonflikts. APuZ 06/14/2024. <https://www.bpb.de/shop/zeitschriften/apuz/antisemitismus-2024/549358/israel-und-der-antisemitismus/> (Accessed: 2025-24-05). My translation to English.

(7) Hasson, Nir & Maanit, Chen (2025): A Lost Battle for Human Rights: Throughout the War Israel's High Court Has Denied All Requests to Protect Gazans. Haaretz 05/23/2025. <https://www.haaretz.com/magazine/2025-05-23/ty-article-magazine/.premium/throughout-the-war-israels-high-court-denied-requests-to-protect-gazans-human-rights/00000196-f8ac-d7c4-a9b6-fcae72440000> (Accessed: 2025-25-05).