A broad coalition of cultural luminaries in Germany has rallied together in an attempt to shift the country’s policy regarding Israel, specifically in the context of the conflict in Gaza. They have addressed their demands directly to Chancellor Merz, imploring him to change course and adopt a tougher stance toward Israel. Their demands are explicit: halt German arms exports, suspend European agreements, press forcefully for a ceasefire, and enable unimpeded humanitarian aid. While these voices condemn the crimes of Hamas and do not downplay the suffering of Israeli hostages, they are adamant that Gaza’s civilian population must not pay the collective price for terror. The letter’s signatories, prominent and influential, emphasize that using starvation as a weapon and threatening mass displacement cannot be tolerated on moral or political grounds. Chancellor Merz, thus far, has spoken only in cautious and vague terms, hinting at future action but not committing to anything concrete.

Let me be unequivocal: the eruption of cultural and moral anguish across Germany’s artistic and intellectual class is neither surprising nor, in itself, a solution. What is overlooked in their passionate appeal is the pernicious fallacy of entrusting coercive government power with the responsibility to manufacture justice through sanctions or embargoes. The noble urge to relieve suffering in Gaza—to halt bloodshed and the agony of the innocent—must not lead us to embrace the dangerous notion that lasting peace and liberty can be dictated by executive commands, economic blockades, or weaponized diplomatic pressure.

The tragedy of Gaza is, at its core, the result of collectivist logic and centralized force—the very logic these signatories now, paradoxically, want Germany to employ against another nation. To demand that government intervene—by halting the free exchange of goods or by severing relations—is to venerate once again the spirit of top-down interference that has for centuries brought so much ruin and suffering. Peace is not achieved by blockades or bureaucratic maneuvering; it is achieved by the slow, imperfect cultivation of free interaction, open societies, and the stubborn defense of individual responsibility over collective guilt.

Do not misunderstand: to oppose the indiscriminate punishment of civilians is an act of justice, and to demand humanitarian aid is an expression of shared humanity. But to call for the German state to wield the big stick—for the sake of “pressure”—betrays a faith in the very mechanisms of control and coercion that have so often produced catastrophe in Europe’s history. If we abandon the principle that each person must be judged as an individual, and that each government action—however well-intentioned—must be strictly limited, we will have lost both liberty and morality.

Lasting solutions do not arise from yet another assertion of power—whether by Israel, Hamas, or Berlin—but from the restoration of individual rights, the opening of societies, and the restraint of all governments from the temptation to “solve” complex problems by command. I call upon all who would be peacemakers: cherish liberty, cherish private cooperation, and beware the seductive lure of government intervention. Only from this will real hope for Gaza—and for the world—emerge.