Germany has long been the most vocal defender of Israel in Europe, invoking a moral duty rooted in the Holocaust to shield the Jewish state from criticism. That stance now appears out of step with growing alarm over the rhetoric of Israeli ministers who openly brand themselves as fascists and call for the systematic killing of civilians.

National security minister Itamar Ben‑Gvir recently suggested that a daily performance indicator should be the death of thirty to forty Palestinians. Such language is not merely inflammatory; it amounts to an endorsement of war crimes. Yet the German government has stopped short of supporting EU‑wide sanctions that would target Ben‑Gvir and other hard‑line figures.

Why sanctions matter now

Calls for sanctions have come from centrist parties across Europe and from human‑rights organisations that warn the rhetoric is eroding the rule of law in the occupied territories. Berlin's reluctance has been justified on the grounds that punitive measures could boost the electoral fortunes of Israel's right‑wing bloc ahead of the next Knesset election.

That argument does not hold up under scrutiny. A recent survey by the Mitvim Institute's Foreign Policy Index found that two‑thirds of Israelis fear their country is becoming a pariah, while more than half say staying within the liberal‑democratic camp of the West is essential. Targeted sanctions would signal to Israeli voters that extremist policies carry a tangible cost, potentially deterring centre‑right supporters from moving further right.

By contrast, the same poll showed that sixty percent of ultra‑Orthodox and supporters of the far‑right Otzma Yehudit party do not regard Israel's standing in the West as important. For that segment, sanctions are unlikely to shift voting behaviour, but they would still serve a symbolic purpose: a clear rebuke from Europe that such extremism is unacceptable.

Beyond individual ministers

Sanctioning individual cabinet members would be a start, but it would not address the deeper structures that enable settlement expansion and the erosion of any prospect for a Palestinian state. The EU's trade agreement with Israel contains clauses that could be invoked to suspend market access for products originating from illegal settlements. So far, those provisions have never been used.

Germany's influence could tip the balance in the European Council. Trade‑related measures require a qualified majority, 55 % of member states representing at least 65 % of the EU population. With Germany's backing, the bloc could reach that threshold and suspend the preferential treatment that settlement goods currently enjoy.

More restrictive actions, such as sanctions on companies that finance settlement construction, need unanimity. Here Germany's position is even more critical, because any dissenting state effectively holds a veto. The Czech Republic, Italy and Hungary have already signalled opposition to such steps, but they have also shown willingness to change course when Germany leads.

When the EU debated sanctions on violent settlers, Germany initially hesitated. After the European Commission paired those measures with actions against Hamas, the German government relented and the Czech and Hungarian delegations withdrew their objections. The episode demonstrates that a shift in Berlin's stance can unlock broader EU consensus.

Political context in Israel

The current coalition, formed after the 2022 elections, includes parties such as Otzma Yehudit and Religious Zionism, whose platforms call for the annexation of parts of the West Bank and the dismantling of any two‑state solution. Their leader, Gadi Eisenkot, currently tops the polls and openly opposes a Palestinian state. Even if the next election produces a different government, the mainstreaming of extremist ideas over the past decade suggests that policy continuity is likely.

Israeli public opinion reflects this shift. While a majority of centre‑right voters express concern about Europe's view of Israel, the most hard‑line constituencies remain indifferent. This divergence means that sanctions aimed at individual ministers would not simply punish a fringe element; they would challenge the growing normalisation of extremist discourse within the Israeli political mainstream.

Economic leverage and moral responsibility

The EU is Israel's largest trading partner, accounting for a substantial share of its exports. That economic weight has not been translated into political pressure. The European Commission has repeatedly warned that settlement products should not benefit from the single market, yet enforcement remains weak.

Germany's historical responsibility for the Holocaust has often been invoked to justify unconditional support for Israel's security. However, security cannot be achieved through policies that violate international law and fuel perpetual conflict. The past two years have shown that the current trajectory does not bring Israel closer to lasting peace, nor does it guarantee its long‑term safety.

By moving from a stance of unconditional backing to one that holds Israel accountable for actions that undermine human rights, Berlin would align its foreign policy with the values it espouses at home, workers' rights, social justice and the rule of law.

What a German shift could look like

If Berlin were to endorse sanctions on Ben‑Gvir and his allies, the immediate effect would be twofold: a material restriction on their ability to travel and access assets abroad, and a powerful symbolic message that Europe will not tolerate calls for mass murder.

More importantly, such a move could open the door to a broader package targeting the economic engines of settlement expansion. This could include freezing EU funding for companies that supply construction materials to settlements, tightening customs checks on goods labelled "Made in Israel" that originate from the West Bank, and expanding the list of entities subject to asset freezes.

Critics argue that sanctions could push Israel closer to non‑Western partners such as Russia or China. Yet the same critics overlook the fact that Israel already enjoys a privileged position in Europe, receiving preferential trade terms and diplomatic support. Adjusting that relationship to reflect compliance with international law would not isolate Israel but would encourage it to align its policies with the standards expected of a democratic partner.

UnionPress therefore calls on Berlin to use its decisive vote in the Council to break the stalemate. The EU should move beyond symbolic condemnations and adopt concrete measures that target both the individuals who promote violence and the structures that sustain illegal settlement activity.

Only by doing so can Europe demonstrate that its commitment to human rights and the rule of law extends beyond its own borders and into the complex realities of the Middle East.