By Robert Inlakesh, Information Clearing House
Germany’s strong support for Israel, despite historical guilt for the Holocaust, may not be solely motivated by remorse. The country’s backing of Israel’s actions in Gaza appears driven by military-industrial interests and alignment with US foreign policy. This suggests a double standard in Germany’s moral arguments and raises questions about its true motives.
If it was true that Germany’s commitment to shielding Israel, at all costs, was down to its historical guilt, then why would it risk association with another act of Genocide?
Despite its historic persecution of European Jewry, Germany today stands as one of the strongest allies of the self-proclaimed ‘Jewish State’ of Israel, providing it with 30 percent of its weapons supplies and unrelenting diplomatic cover.
While some argue that Berlin’s unwavering support, for its Israeli ally, is born of guilt from the Germany’s genocide during the Second World War, the record suggests there is another explanation for their actions.
Nicaragua Case
Following the success of South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), winning a unanimous decision from the court’s judges that there is a plausible genocide being carried out in Gaza, the State of Nicaragua decided to take the natural next step and pursue one of the collaborators in carrying out violations of the Genocide Convention.
Managua has accused Germany of complicity in yet another genocide, at the ICJ, a crime for which Berlin is particularly infamous for.
Not only was the German State responsible for the Holocaust under Nazi rule, but also carried out a Genocide in Namibia prior to the First World War too.
In the case of the Nazi regime’s extermination of the Jewish people, it is fair to say that modern Germany has expressed its regret, paid reparations and attempted to disassociate itself from the crime.
However, its refusal to pay its dues for the crimes it committed during the colonial era in Africa, more specifically the Genocide of the Nama and Herero people, reflects an inability to acknowledge its wrong doings against all peoples.
As the second largest weapons supplier, behind the United States, to the Israeli military, Germany is faced with a tremendous legal commitment to attempt in preventing Tel Aviv from carrying out actions that violate international law with those arms.
In this case, the Israelis have plausibly been accused at the highest judicial body on the planet of committing the crime of all crimes, for which Berlin has alleged its iron clad support for Israel has been premised.
If Nicaragua’s case is successful, it could trigger the ICJ to order provisional measures that will force Germany to halt arms sales to Israel, which would be a major development.
Freedom of Speech
However, instead of shying away from being tied to yet another genocide, the German State has doubled down in its support for the Israelis in their assault on the Gaza Strip.
On top of consistently utilising its police and security forces to violently crack down on Germany’s pro-Palestinian peaceful demonstrators, it has also taken unprecedented action to prevent their citizens having the right to freedom of speech on the issue too.
On April 12, the German authorities were reported to have mounted thousands of police officers to participate in shutting down a Palestine Conference organized in Berlin.
Shortly before the conference, Palestinian-British doctor Ghassan Abu Sitta, who was supposed be a keynote speaker, was denied entry into German territory and deported.
The electricity was shut off to the conference and even a prominent Jewish pro-Palestine activist was arrested, a police officers prevented journalists from filming, justifying their actions later by stating that one of the speakers who was attending through an online call, Salman Abu Sitta, was banned from political activity inside of Germany.
While the German authorities have made clear that their unconditional support for Israeli actions in Gaza will not be swayed by calls from their own public, even going so far as to prevent democratic means of the German population voicing its disapproval of their governments policy.
This begs the question as to why the German government, which so openly proclaims its disgust and regret for the actions of the Nazis during the Second World War, truly prioritizes ridding itself of the genocide association label.
Historical Guilt?
If it was true that Germany’s commitment to shielding Israel, at all costs, was down to its historical guilt, then why would it risk association with another act of Genocide?
Instead, the true underlying causes of Germany’s support for Israel, in its war against Gaza, are more likely the need to continue the flow of weapons to the benefit of its own military industrial complex, in addition to its commitment to aiding the United States in maintaining Western supremacy throughout West Asia.
Germany has strongly condemned Russia for its military action’s in Ukraine and attempted to build, what it calls, a moral argument against Moscow’s offensive actions.
Yet, comparatively, while the Russian armed forces have killed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers, only 550 children are said to have been killed during some two years of war.
When it comes to the actions of the Israelis, inflicting over 40,000 deaths in Gaza – when including the some 13,000 missing and presumed dead – nearly 70% are said to be women and children.
What we see here, in the case of the German government, is not only a clear double-standard, but also an attempt to build moral arguments to justify their positions, when it comes to foreign policy, that are inherently contradictory.
If we are to take Berlin at face value, about its alleged Genocide guilt and concern over civilian deaths, there are only two viable explanations for their double-standards: Either Germany believes that European lives are worth more than non-Europeans, or they are lying to deceive the public into believing they are committed to certain foreign policy positions for ethical reason for propagandistic purposes alone.
As is the case for the United States and the other governments of the collective West, it may be that a mixture of the two explanations are true.
-
Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.
Click Here To Get Your FREE Newsletter No Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
No comments:
Post a Comment