Abdussalam Bhatti, Missionary, Munich, Germany
The recent arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant have sparked intense debate and controversy on a global scale, particularly in countries like Germany.
Germany finds itself in a very delicate position: it is both a committed supporter of the ICC’s international justice mandate and a close ally of Israel with a relationship rooted in historical and political ties. This is why the nation is facing a challenging dilemma; one which the public is eager to see how they solve.
In response to the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant, Germany’s government spokesman, Steffen Hebestreit, remained non-committal and avoided directly addressing whether Germany would enforce the warrant.
Hebestreit explained that Germany respects the decisions of the ICC in principle, but that an arrest of Netanyahu is “hard to imagine”. He justified this with the German reason of state, which regards the protection of Israel as an elementary component. At the same time, he emphasised the importance of the ICC as an instrument of international law. (“Germany says Netanyahu arrest ‘hard to imagine’”, www.dw.com, 22 November 2024)
In contrast, countries like France and Belgium have taken a more definitive stance. These nations strongly affirmed their support for the International Criminal Court’s independence and insisted that potential war crimes must be investigated and prosecuted regardless of who committed them.
The German government argued that this decision was “not uncontroversial” among legal experts as to whether the ICC actually has jurisdiction in this case. (“German official: possible arrest of Netanyahu in Germany ‘hard to imagine’ on basis of ICC warrant”, www.youtube.com, 27 November 2024) However, the question of jurisdiction has already been clarified: In February 2021, the ICC ruled that it had, and has, jurisdiction over the occupied Palestinian territories. And, the objection that the Israeli courts should be given time to deal with the allegations also does not apply from the perspective of The Hague court.
Differing views have come to the surface. Politicians such as Hesse’s Minister-President Boris Rhein (CDU) criticised the arrest warrant and described it as “absurd”. He argued that Israel had a right to self-defence and that protecting the country was a priority. (“Would Netanyahu be arrested in Germany?”, www.dw.com, 22 November 2024) Jürgen Hardt, foreign policy spokesman for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, rejected the alleged equation of the Israeli government with Hamas as “disturbing”.
German journalist and author Robin Alexander sees the arrest warrants as a political decision that could jeopardise Israel’s right to self-defence. According to Alexander, equating Netanyahu with Hamas leaders in this way would put the special relationship between Germany and Israel to the test.
Strack-Zimmermann of the Free Democratic Party (FDP) warned against prematurely taking sides on the issue and called for a detailed examination of the allegations. She highlighted the need for a balanced foreign policy based on facts and legal norms.
Given the history of Germany, however, the question remains as to whether Germany could take a clear stance without jeopardising the moral foundations of its foreign policy or its historical responsibility. This area of tension shows how difficult striking a balance between reason of state and international law is for Germany.
On the one hand, there is a moral obligation to support international courts, but on the other, the historical and political alliance with Israel still stands. While international law applies universally, the protection of Israel is derived from German history as a political and moral imperative.
Currently, the alliance seems to take precedence as Netanyahu’s arrest in Germany appears to be practically ruled out.
