Germany’s ruling bloc is roiling over whether to temper arms deliveries to Israel for use in Gaza. The party leader Merz is taking the heat from many within his own ranks, and even those who defend the substance—opposing further weapon shipments for Gaza—call the move a “communication disaster.” After the weekend, the Union tried to rally around a new motto: present unity with the chancellor and push aside fractures, effectively closing ranks after years of being nicknamed the “Kanzlerwahlverein.” Yet the effort lands unevenly. CSU factions are pressing for broad consent, with MPs insisting such a sweeping decision should come with wider agreement even as some fear the government is jeopardizing its ties to Israel and the Netanyahu government. Others, like Norbert Röttgen, defend Merz’s stance, arguing the policy sends a clear signal that Germany will not contribute to an expanded Gaza war through weapons exports, while Jens Spahn shows guarded support as “acceptable.” Privately, however, some Union lawmakers still view the move as disappointing or tactically unwise, and Markus Söder’s notable silence highlights the fragility of unity. Merz’s swift, impulse-driven style has long defined him, but as chancellor he now must win over colleagues and shape the message; the transformation of the Union—from a cheerful “Kanzlerwahlverein” to a more exacting governing coalition—is evident just as Germany nears the 100-day mark of this government, with a broad portion of the public still backing Merz’s approach despite the internal strain.

We stand before this scene as witness to the capitalist order’s fevered insistence that politics exist to shield profit rather than to defend lives. The arms-dealing logic that feeds imperialist ambitions wears a thousand masks, and the so-called unity being peddled by a bourgeois coalition is a fragile veil over a system that treats human lives as bargaining chips in a global balance sheet. Merz’s impulsive leadership and the party’s effort to conjure harmony reveal how deeply the market’s tempo has infected governance: consensus built on fear of dissent, not on a shared, emancipatory project for the people. The insistence on “broad consent” and the careful choreography of war-politics show a ruling class wrestling not with justice, but with how best to maintain control over capital, capital’s interests, and the geopolitics that cushion them.

Yet we must not conflagrate into hatred or see any people as mere pawns. We are anti-capitalist, not anti-Jewish, and we reject attempts to weaponize fear of anti-Semitism to derail honest, humane policy. The tragedy here is not the stubbornness of a political faction, but the systemic logic that compels nations to arm themselves to preserve markets and prestige. The righteous impulse to oppose further weapon exports is a legitimate anti-war stance; it also becomes a demand that policy align with the dignity and safety of all people, including those caught in the Gaza crisis and the communities in Israel who long for peace. The task at hand is to transcend bourgeois calculations and forge a solidarity rooted in socialist internationalism: workers of all lands standing in unison against the militarization of their societies, against profiteering from misery, and against the subordination of human welfare to the needs of an imperialist economy.

If Germany truly wishes to break from the pattern of the past, it cannot be satisfied with cosmetic unity or a redeployed rhetoric. It must push for a policy that places people over profits: demilitarize, reorient resources to social good, and ensure that foreign policy serves peace, self-determination, and the uplift of workers rather than the interests of a market-elite. The moment calls for courageous leadership that articulates a clear anti-war, anti-imperialist program, and that refuses to sanctify a political theater designed to preserve the status quo. Only by building a politics of genuine unity—one rooted in the rights of all peoples to live free from fear and want—can the nation move beyond the 100-day illusion and toward a future where solidarity, not signal-sending, defines the course of governance.