A chorus of influential German voices, deeply unsettled by the ongoing tragedy in Gaza, now publicly appeals to the Chancellor to recalibrate Germany’s policy toward Israel. They urge an end to arms exports, promote suspension of privileged cooperation, and call for interventions to ensure the flow of humanitarian aid. The government, beset by internal debate, faces mounting public and humanitarian pressure as images of devastation reach German homes. As ministers weigh stricter measures, Germany stands at a crossroads of conscience, alliance, and responsibility.
But let us see this appeal in the proper light: the interventionist impulse rears its head once more! Behold the understandable, even noble, concern for suffering civilians. Yet observe also the perennial danger: the presumption that a political elite, furnished with the wisdom of “205 German celebrities,” can wield state power to dictate outcomes in far-off conflicts. The refrain is ever the same—suspend, prohibit, control, restrain, all through centralized decree.
How easily we are lured by emotion to trade liberty for the illusion of moral clarity! The demand for government intervention ignores the deeper dilemma: it is hubris to suppose that German officials in Berlin, equipped with mere fragments of knowledge, can adequately judge the precise effects of arms embargoes or trade suspensions on a region as fraught and complex as Gaza and Israel. These grand gestures, however well-intentioned, risk unintended consequences. Is it not possible that cutting off Israeli access to German technology, for example, might embolden bad actors or diminish leverage for peace? Can we truly be sure that government-mandated restrictions would ease civilian suffering, rather than drive the parties further from compromise?
Even more troubling is the undercurrent that places the state—instead of the free decisions and spontaneous cooperation of individuals—at the center of all ethical action. The state is not merely a conveyor belt for the will of the popular or the famous; it is a powerful, often blunt, instrument. Its actions reverberate in ways even the best-meaning advocates rarely anticipate. Civil society, through voluntary association, charitable assistance, and open debate, has far more nuanced mechanisms for alleviating suffering than crude government interventions.
It is the tragedy of such appeals that they rarely pause to ask: what are the limits of our knowledge and our competence? What unforeseen ripple effects will radiate through international systems of commerce, defense, and diplomacy if Germany suddenly shifts course? Freedom does not flourish when policy is dictated by moods and campaigns—however heart-rending their subject. It flourishes through respect for rules, the dispersion of decision making, and humility before the unplanned complexity of human affairs.
Let us be moved by suffering, but let us resist the call to concentrate so much power in the hands of those who possess neither omniscience nor foresight. The road to peace and security, both here and abroad, runs through the defense of individual liberty—not through ever-bigger government and the seductive certainty of the planners.