JJP writes to the German Embassy about the “Staatsräson”

On 15 July 2024, JJP wrote to the German Embassy in London about several aspects of Germany’s attitude towards Israel’s war on Gaza. The most important was an effort to encourage the German Government to think carefully about its “Staatsräson”of support for Israeli security above everything else in international relations. The huge moral contradiction in the “Staatsräson” has to be addressed honestly.

Our letter is below

Dr. Felix Karstens 12 July 2024

2nd Secretary (Political)

Embassy of Germany

Dear Dr. Karstens,

We are responding to Ms. Weber’s email of 17 June with the enclosed text of the earlier mail she wrote on your behalf.

We appreciate the extreme sensitivity of these issues in Germany and the efforts the German government makes to hold Israel accountable to humanitarian law. However, those efforts are within the limits of Germany’s oft-declared “Staatsräson”, which is a serious problem as we see it.

Consequently, in this letter, we would like to discuss some of the issues raised in our letter of 24 April to Dr. Kohnen, the German submission to the ICJ and Ms. Weber’s email.

A. The “Staatsräson”

First and most important is the way Germany interprets its commitment to human rights as the non-negotiable “Staatsräson” to protect Israel’s security above all else. It places German support for Israel’s security above its support for international law and universal human rights. That contradiction is acute and long predates Hamas’ horrendous, illegal attack on Israeli civilians on 7th October. It was fully articulated in practice in 1967, when Federal German Chancellor Kieisinger, unlike other European leaders, failed to criticise Israel for starting the six-day war or its ensuing occupation of Palestinian lands.

The Opening and Closing German Statements by Ms Von Uslar-Gleishen in Nicaragua vs. Germany at the International Court of Justice lay bare this fundamental contradiction. She said “our permanent duty to stand up for the existence and security of the State of Israel. This responsibility guides us.”, and then “Germany has always been a strong supporter of the rights of the Palestinian people. This is – alongside Israel’s security – the second principle.”

Despite Ms. Uslar-Gleishen’s attempt to square the circle, German priority is clear: Israel’s security first, Palestinian rights second. Therefore the moral contradiction is also clear because the threats to Israel’s security are caused by its occupation of Palestinian territory and denial of Palestinian rights.

Ms. Uslar-Gleishen goes on to emphasise Germany’s recognition of the Palestinian right to a state in the occupied territories and reminds Israel that international law applies to its actions. Welcome and important as these statements are, they do not eliminate the moral contradiction in German policy.

B. The right to self- defence

Germany says Israel has the right self defence, and this is said in the context of the occupation in general and specifically in its war against Hamas. That is mistaken. Israel is a belligerent occupier, in fact and in law. An occupier does not have the right of self- defence against the population it is occupying.

That is clear from several sources, e.g. the standard commentary on United Nations Charter Article 51. “The right of self-defence under Article 51 is triggered by an act of armed aggression by one State against another.”, The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the separation wall, “Lastly, the Court concluded that Israel could not rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall, and that such construction and its associated régime were accordingly contrary to international law.”; and Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, “Israel cannot claim the right of self defence against a threat that emanates from the territory it occupies.”

In the context of the occupation, Israel only has the right, indeed the duty, to protect its citizens. By promoting the false view that Israel has the right of self-defence against Hamas, we believe the German government is unwittingly implying that Israel’s collective punishment of Gaza is legitimate. That has provided political cover for its continuation.

C. The categorisation of Israel’s assault on Gaza in international law

There has been considerable comment on the categorisation of Israel’s assault on Gaza in international humanitarian law. We have collated all the comments by authoritative scholars in genocide studies, holocaust studies and international law that we could find, and have included recent reports and actions by three authoritative institutions. Our paper is attached.

You will see that Israel’s assault was almost immediately being called a war crime and/or a crime against humanity by large groups of scholars and lawyers. They are devastating conclusions. As the months of assault have continued relentlessly, the comment has shifted conclusively to the even more devastating conclusion of genocide. Only the three institutions, no doubt acting cautiously from political considerations, have called it a war crime and a crime against humanity.

As a careful organisation that believes in measured comment, JJP has been calling the assault a war crime and a crime against humanity. Now, however, we believe the term genocide is appropriate and we are using it.

There is little doubt future historians will call Israel’s’ war on Gaza a genocide. The International Court of Justice may well rule it is genocide long before those future histories are written.

In those circumstances, Germany will be seen as complicit in a modern genocide if it does not change its “Staatsräson” and its invocation of Israel’s non-existent “right of self-defence” in its war on Gaza. The bitter irony would not be greater. Israel, the country born in part from the ashes of the holocaust, committed genocide in order to further its nationalist ambitions, supported by Germany, the country that perpetrated the holocaust.

D. The two court cases against Germany

We acknowledge that neither the Nicaraguan application to the ICJ for provisional measures to prevent Germany from continuing to supply weapons to Israel nor the petition by a number of Palestinian Gaza residents to the Berlin Administrative Court was successful. We note the ICC’s acceptance of the German government’s distinction between “war weapons” (those that kill) and “other military weapons” (those that protect or communicate), and its evidence that 98% of the weapons sent since October have been in the latter category, and that those in the “war weapons” category were for training and unsuitable for combat.

Conclusion

We firmly believe German governments have acted in good faith to accept Germany’s historic responsibility for the holocaust, but their commitment has been manipulated by successive Israeli governments in pursuit of taking over and settling the occupied Palestinian territories. Reminders of the past, with their implied allegations of antisemitism, are ruthlessly deployed to ensure that support continues.

We believe the German government should reconsider the “Staatsräson” so that Germany’s supreme responsibility in international relations is to support human rights and international law. That would be universally respected. Support for Israel should be in that context.

We would welcome a meeting to discuss these issues.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur Goodman
Parliamentary and Diplomatic Liaison Officer