EDITORIAL. Friedrich Merz, the Chancellor in office since May 2025, must be on cloud nine – or perhaps on a line of rhetorical exuberance, given how over the top his latest announcement to halt arms deliveries to Israel seems. The decision not to approve any more armaments that could be used in the Gaza Strip amounts to a political about-face that is as spectacular as it is questionable. Merz, who attacked Olaf Scholz just months ago for an alleged blockade of arms deliveries to Israel, now appears to be making a course correction himself that borders on the unrealistic. His reasoning: Israel's intensified offensive in Gaza and the suffering of the civilian population. But while he stages himself as a moral compass, his decision seems like posturing under pressure – a performance that is neither realistic nor politically feasible. At the same time, Israel's actions in Gaza deserve sharp criticism, but Merz's activism resembles an overheated trip that lacks the substance of sound foreign policy.
A delivery stop that isn't?
Merz's announcement to stop arms exports to Israel is a thunderclap with footnotes. According to his statement of August 8, 2025, "no exports of armaments that can be used in the Gaza Strip will be approved until further notice." But reality is more complex. Germany is one of Israel's largest arms suppliers, with exports worth around 28 million euros in the first quarter of 2025. These deliveries are part of a deep-rooted strategic partnership based on Germany's historical responsibility towards Israel. A complete delivery stop would be a break with the raison d'état that Merz himself has repeatedly invoked. His decision therefore seems rather symbolic: a partial stop that excludes weapons for Gaza but potentially leaves other deliveries – such as for Israel's missile defense – untouched.
Realistically, a total delivery stop is hardly feasible. The German arms industry, closely intertwined with international partners, and geopolitical obligations to the US and Israel make such a step almost impossible. Moreover, Merz himself has emphasized that Germany will continue to stand in solidarity with Israel. His decision appears to be a compromise to appease the coalition partner SPD and public opinion without undermining the cornerstones of German policy towards Israel. But it is precisely this half-heartedness that makes the announcement politically fragile: it provokes criticism from all sides without drawing a clear line.
Merz's drug-induced state: Posturing without a compass
Merz's appearance suggests he got carried away in a fit of hubris with a gesture he hadn't fully thought through. As recently as January 2025, he railed against an alleged arms embargo under Scholz, promising to supply Israel with everything it "needs to exercise its right to self-defense." Now, as Chancellor, he's executing a 180-degree turn that leaves even his own party speechless. The CSU, not involved in the decision, is outraged, and CDU foreign policy experts like Roderich Kiesewetter speak of a "serious political and strategic mistake." The Junge Union goes so far as to speak of a "breach of the principles of Union policy." Merz's unilateral action has divided the Union and tarnished his credibility as Chancellor.
His justification, the humanitarian situation in Gaza, is not unfounded, but it appears to be a post-hoc attempt at justification. Merz himself emphasizes that Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas and that disarming the terrorist organization is "essential." But how is Israel supposed to achieve this goal if Germany withholds the means? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's accusation that Merz is rewarding Hamas with the arms embargo is pointed and not entirely dismissible. Merz's decision seems driven less by a strategic reorientation and more by domestic political pressure – for example, from the SPD, which welcomes the change in course, or from public protests, such as the open letter from 400 celebrities demanding an arms embargo. It's as if Merz acted in a fit of panic to calm the waters without considering the consequences.
Israel's actions in Gaza: A catastrophe that deserves criticism
Let's be clear: Israel's military offensive in Gaza, particularly the planned capture of Gaza City, is a humanitarian catastrophe. Since the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, which cost around 1,200 lives and took over 250 hostages to Gaza, Israel's counter-offensive has claimed over 61,000 lives, according to the Hamas-controlled health authority. The number may be disputed, but the images of destroyed cities, displaced families, and suffering civilians speak for themselves. Netanyahu's announcement to take over Gaza City and evacuate the population to refugee camps further exacerbates the crisis. Israel's government bears an enormous responsibility for the care of the civilian population, which it is not adequately fulfilling. The demand for a ceasefire and humanitarian aid, as Merz is raising, is therefore correct and urgent.
However, criticism of Israel must not turn into one-sided demonization. Hamas, which triggered the war with its terrorist attack, remains a threat that cannot be ignored. Its threat to respond to further escalation with "consequences" shows that it continues to rely on violence. Merz's arms embargo may sound morally appealing, but it ignores the reality of a conflict in which Israel can hardly guarantee its security without military means. The demand by the Central Council of Jews in Germany for Merz to correct his course underscores the danger: a weakened Israel could destabilize the entire region.
A Chancellor Without a Plan
Merz's decision is a tightrope walk that plunges him into a dilemma. He wants to denounce the humanitarian situation in Gaza – rightly so – but he risks jeopardizing Germany's foreign policy credibility. His own party accuses him of betraying raison d'état, while the SPD and Greens criticize him for "too little, too late." Netanyahu is furious, the opposition in Israel speaks of a "catastrophe," and even international partners like Great Britain and the UN are exerting pressure. Merz's attempt to appease all sides ends in chaos that calls his leadership into question.
It's as if Merz made a decision in a fit of hubris – or perhaps as if on cocaine – that he now has to painstakingly defend. His announcement to smooth things over on ARD's "Tagesschau" seems like a desperate attempt at damage control. But the truth is: an arms embargo that is neither thought out nor coordinated with alliance partners will neither solve the conflict in Gaza nor strengthen Germany's position. Merz needs to get off his trip and return to a foreign policy that is clear, consistent, and realistic. Everything else is just hot air.
