Germany ended its three-month suspension on weapons exports to Israel on Nov. 24, with Chancellor Friedrich Merz arriving in Jerusalem on Dec. 6 to reaffirm Berlin’s political and military support even as Israeli forces continue lethal operations in Gaza. The announcement came despite documented ceasefire violations from Israel, hundreds of Palestinian deaths, and warnings from humanitarian agencies that conditions remain catastrophic. During the visit, Merz insisted that Germany “must stand up for the existence and security of Israel,” maintaining that recognition of a Palestinian state should occur only “at the end of such a process.”

Human rights groups and opposition figures condemned the move, arguing that Berlin is enabling violations of international law. Amnesty International Germany warned that resuming arms sales while Gaza civilians continue to be killed “may constitute a breach of Germany’s obligations under international law.” Die Linke Member of Parliament Sevim Dağdelen criticized Merz for advancing “a morally incoherent position,” adding that “Germany cannot claim a principled stance on human rights while fueling the very war it says it regrets.” Member of the EU Parliament Hannah Neumann stated that “exporting weapons into an active genocide is incompatible with international humanitarian law.” Civil society groups also denounced Germany’s repression of domestic pro-Palestine activism, saying authorities have “criminalized solidarity” through protest bans and detentions.

While Germany frames its actions as support for Israel’s security, critics argue that the resumption of arms exports could intensify the conflict’s trajectory. Weapons transfers, particularly those associated with naval enforcement and aerial operations, oftne coincide with increased civilian harm rather than de-escalation. Lifting export restrictions while ceasefire violations continue may reduce Germany’s leverage in encouraging restraint or compliance with international humanitarian law. Human rights and United Nations analysts suggest that alternative approaches, such as conditioning arms transfers on legal safeguards, prioritizing diplomatic engagement, and supporting multilateral accountability mechanisms, could offer additional avenues for influencing behavior and sustaining prospects for a negotiated resolution.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Germany accounted for approximately 30 percent of Israel’s arms imports between 2019 and 2023, making it Israel’s second-largest arms supplier after the United States. In 2023, the German government authorized €326.5 million in military export licenses to Israel, more than 10 times the amount approved in 2022, according to the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action. These exports have included naval assets such as the German-built Sa’ar 6 corvettes, which Israel has used to enforce the Gaza naval blockade, as well as Dolphin-class submarines that form the backbone of Israel’s submarine fleet. Politically, Germany has frequently abstained on Gaza-related resolutions at the UN General Assembly, seeking to avoid alienating Israel by declining to recognize a Palestinian state. At home, German authorities have imposed bans on pro-Palestinian demonstrations and events and detained protesters, measures that UN special rapporteurs and Amnesty International have criticized as inconsistent with international human rights obligations.

Germany’s decision to resume arms exports to Israel highlights the enduring tension between its stated commitment to international law and its strategic alliance with the Israeli state. As civilian harm in Gaza continues and ceasefire violations persist, Berlin’s policy choices will shape not only its credibility as a defender of human rights, but also its capacity to contribute constructively to de-escalation. Whether Germany can reconcile its historical responsibilities with the need for accountability and the protection of civilians remains an open question, with significant implications for peace, security, and the future of international norms governing armed conflict.