Germany paying diplomatic price for double standards on Gaza, experts warn

Foreign policy expert Philip Holzapfel says Germany should halt arms exports to Israel and stop blocking EU measures aimed at increasing pressure on the Netanyahu government German government faces another test this week in a UN Human Rights Council election, where unease over its Gaza policy could again shape how countries vote Germany’s approach to Israel’s war in Gaza is undermining its credibility as a defender of human rights and weakening its diplomatic influence, a former ambassador and a foreign policy expert warn. They say Berlin’s support for the Netanyahu administration has raised doubts about its commitment to international law, with consequences for its standing at the United Nations and its relations with countries in the EU and beyond. Martin Kobler, a former German ambassador, told Anadolu that Germany’s failure to win a UN Security Council seat in June was “a major foreign policy disaster.” The UN General Assembly on June 3 elected the non-permanent members of the UN Security Council for 2027–28. In the contest for the two Western seats, Portugal received 134 votes and Austria 131. Germany, with 104, came third and lost. It marked the first time Germany lost a bid for a non-permanent UN Security Council seat, according to diplomats. The German government has blamed a late campaign and accused Russia of lobbying against a German seat. Kobler, however, said the main reason was that countries withheld their votes because they saw hypocrisy in Berlin’s dealings with Israel. “It was the double standard. In particular when it comes to a comparison between what we say in Ukraine and other conflicts like Gaza,” he said, referring to Berlin’s selective defense of international law – demanding accountability for Russia’s actions in Ukraine while shielding Israel from similar scrutiny over Gaza. Kobler said doubts about Germany’s consistency in defending international law had also affected its standing elsewhere at the UN. How past positions contrast with Gaza “In the past, we had a good credibility record,” he said. He pointed to Berlin’s positions on the Syria conflict, war in Ukraine and Myanmar, where Germany intervened at the International Court of Justice and argued that those responsible for the genocide against the Rohingya had to be held accountable. “We advocated a broad interpretation of genocide, but switched to a narrow interpretation only a week after the South Africa case against Israel began,” he said, referring to Berlin’s change of stance once the ICJ began examining South Africa’s case accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. Germany has condemned Russia’s war in Ukraine as a breach of international law and has championed EU sanctions on Moscow. On Gaza, the same government has been reluctant to name violations, has continued arms sales to Israel and has blocked EU moves to increase pressure on Netanyahu’s coalition. Niels Annen, Germany’s candidate to lead the UN refugee agency, was also passed over in December 2025 when Secretary-General Antonio Guterres nominated former Iraqi President Barham Salih instead. The General Assembly then elected Salih by consensus. “It is a whole series that shows us that we are losing credibility in this respect and this has consequences,” Kobler said. Merz’s staunch Israel line stirs controversy Chancellor Friedrich Merz, a staunch ally of Israel, has repeatedly cited the country’s historical responsibility – shaped by the crimes of the Nazi era and the Holocaust – to help ensure Israel’s security. He has rejected calls for a total arms embargo on Israel and blocked proposed EU measures, including sanctions and suspension of the EU-Israel trade agreement. In 2025, Merz criticized the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and promised to find ways to welcome Netanyahu in Berlin. “Fundamentally, an Israeli prime minister must be able to travel to Germany,” he said. “He is a democratically elected prime minister of the only democracy in the entire region.” Kobler sharply criticized Merz for rejecting the authority of the International Criminal Court and for promising to welcome Netanyahu in Berlin. “This is something I deeply deplore because the international criminal court system is a legacy of our own history,” he said, referring to the post-war system of international justice that grew out of the trials of Nazi leaders. “One cannot say that this international criminal court system is just for dictators, so to say just for African dictators, but not for democratically elected prime ministers,” he said. “It is also there for democratically elected prime ministers. And this double standard is something which – in particular, in the global south – has not gone unnoticed.” Kobler warned that the German government’s current policy is not only undermining its own international credibility but also risks weakening the institutions that uphold international law, the very institutions Berlin says it wants to protect. He stressed that Germany’s historical responsibility requires it to speak up as a true friend of Israel, to pursue more active diplomacy and to warn that the current course is not in Israel’s own security interests. German public uneasy with government’s policy Polls conducted over the past year show substantial public opposition to aspects of Berlin’s Israel policy. Voters are taking an increasingly critical stance toward Berlin’s Israel policy, with a clear majority rejecting military support for Israel and calling for stronger pressure on Netanyahu’s government. In a recent Forsa poll, 58% of Germans said Berlin should apply greater pressure on Netanyahu’s coalition over its policies in Gaza and the West Bank. Another survey released by the Koerber Foundation last November found that 82% opposed Germany’s military support for Israel. Sixty percent rejected the idea that the Holocaust gives Germany a special responsibility for Israel. A separate YouGov survey from September 2025 found that 62% of Germans believe Israel’s military campaign in Gaza amounted to genocide. Calls for an end to arms exports Philip Holzapfel, a former adviser to EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell and now a nonresident senior fellow at the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, said growing public and political pressure on the Merz government had so far produced only limited change. Berlin briefly and partly suspended arms exports that could be used in Gaza in August 2025, then lifted that restriction in November after a ceasefire and returned to case-by-case review. Approvals rose once the curb was removed. Preliminary Economy Ministry figures show military export approvals for Israel worth €799 million ($896 million) from January through June. Israel ranked sixth among destinations, and the half-year total was already about four times the full-year figure for 2025. “If there are reasons to suspect that there's a risk that arms could be used in war crimes, or could disturb the peace and security of the region, then they cannot be authorized,” Holzapfel said, citing the Arms Trade Treaty, a pact Germany championed, and domestic law that restricts sales into conflict zones when serious violations are a risk. Holzapfel questioned how Berlin could ensure that arms supplied to Israel would not be used in the fighting. “We're talking about ammunition, we're talking about spare parts for Merkava tanks, we're talking about things that obviously are used in whatever conflict. So I think that the legal situation is quite clear there,” he said. Germany also faces a case brought by Nicaragua at the International Court of Justice over alleged breaches of its obligations concerning Gaza, including through arms supplies to Israel. The court held hearings on Germany’s preliminary objections in September. Blocking EU sanctions Holzapfel also criticized the Merz government for blocking coordinated European measures that could raise pressure on Israel. Berlin has stalled efforts inside the EU to suspend parts of the EU-Israel association agreement and to impose sanctions on right-wing Israeli ministers. Ireland, France, Spain and Slovenia have acted alone, including with entry bans. “Germany is currently the member state within the EU that carries the brunt of responsibility for EU inaction. There’s absolutely no doubt about it,” he said. He added that the EU could in fact play a significant role in pressuring the Israeli government to end human rights violations, return to diplomacy, pursue a political solution and allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza. “The European Union has immense leverage by virtue of its size, of its economy, of the historic ties to Israel and to the Middle East,” Holzapfel said. “We have a very close relationship and the leverage is there. It just needs to be used, also in the interest of Israel.” If Berlin keeps blocking, he said, Germany’s diplomatic losses will likely continue, above all with governments in the Global South and in Arab and Muslim countries. Berlin’s credibility faces another UN test That unease could surface again in the days ahead, Holzapfel warned, as Germany seeks a three-year seat on the UN Human Rights Council for 2027-29, with the vote set for this week. Germany and Ireland are the only candidates for the two Western European and Others seats. Berlin, therefore, faces a lower hurdle than in the Security Council race – though it still needs 97 of 193 votes in a secret ballot. The math favors Germany this time, but Holzapfel said a win is far from certain. Even a successful bid with limited support could indicate continuing discontent with Berlin’s policy, he added. “I can imagine that the effect we saw in the UN General Assembly vote in June will most probably also be visible there,” he said. “How it will end is hard to predict – whether by another fiasco or whether Germany manages to win – but I’m almost certain that there will be a visible effect of these dynamics.”