EU Scream – Episode 116: Gaza, Staatsräson, and von der Leyen

Date: June 5, 2025
Host: James Cantor (C)
Guest: Katrin Pribyl (E), journalist covering the EU for German regional newspapers; former reporter in Israel/Palestinian territories

Overview

This episode explores the European, and especially German, responses to Israel's war in Gaza, examining the underlying historical, political, and moral tensions. Central to the episode are the concepts of “Staatsräson” (reason of state)—especially Germany’s commitment to Israel’s security—and the actions (and inactions) of EU leaders, notably Ursula von der Leyen. The discussion is steeped in questions about identity, collective memory, international law, and the polarization within the EU over the Israel–Palestine conflict.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Atrocities and Response in Gaza (00:02–01:38)

• The episode opens by underscoring the horrific violence committed by Hamas, with the expectation that Israel’s democratic nature would be reflected in its response:

  “How Israel responds will show that it is a democracy exerting the right of self-defense to do this in line with international law.” – A (00:02)

• Critique of Israeli ministers’ declarations about Gaza and questions about whether these constitute war crimes.
• Ongoing public outcry, calls for condemnation, sanctions, and trade reevaluation among Western allies.

2. Germany’s Role and Historical Baggage (01:43–06:56)

• Germany as 'the elephant in the room' (though not alone in its position) due to its size, power, and unshakeable alignment with Israel, rooted in its Holocaust legacy.
• Staatsräson: The concept that supporting Israel is central to German identity and statehood. But the vagueness of its real-world application leads to a moral impasse as atrocities in Gaza mount:

  “Germany's very existence is linked to Israel's security. So what do you do with that now? We like that formula is not very much defined, it's very vague.” – E (04:58)

• A growing call for a more honest and nuanced national conversation about what Staatsräson actually means in current events—one that has, so far, largely failed to materialize.

3. Origins and Ambiguity of Staatsräson (06:56–11:14)

• Merkel’s 2008 Knesset speech entrenched the concept in German policy, but it was ambiguous—“a trump card” overriding moral/legal concerns.
• Debate over whether this helps or harms German foreign policy; it’s unclear if Staatsräson means unwavering political support, military aid, or something broader:

  “There was just no definition. And the question was, was Angela Merkel just being carried away...or has it actually harmed Germany's foreign policy rather than helped it?” – E (07:34)

4. Military Support, Arms Exports, and Political Limits (11:14–14:01)

• Germany is Israel’s second-largest arms supplier after the US, with controversial deals including submarines.
• Trade in defensive materiel has ebbed, but concerns about equipment used in possible war crimes persist.
• Despite a sharper critical tone (“no strategy of the Israelis anymore”—Chancellor Mertz), material support continues; new red lines are undrawn:

  “So far, I cannot see where Germany is drawing some red lines. So how far would they go in their support of Israel at the moment? I just can't imagine there is actually a red line.” – E (13:31)

5. Media Culture and Public Discourse (14:01–16:12)

• Axel Springer, Germany’s leading publisher and owner of Politico, mandates support for Israel as editorial policy.
• This tradition shapes German and Brussels media alike, fostering both elite and public reflexes that stifle open debate and criticism of Israeli policy.
• The debate is often black-and-white; few feel free to express more nuanced or critical views without risk of being accused of antisemitism.

6. Ursula von der Leyen as Lightning Rod (16:12–19:29)

• Von der Leyen drew criticism for her early, unequivocal show of solidarity with Israel and lack of visible empathy for Gazan civilians:

  “I think for a lot of European partners, she did not point out the suffering of the Palestinians enough. And I must say I found that almost a bit unfair...But then I think she was also a bit caught in this situation and being a German...” – E (16:52)

• Lighting up the EU HQ in Israeli colors was seen as provocative by some, although part of a wider tradition when solidarity is shown after terrorist attacks.
• Her silence after this, perceived as strategic, is also widely criticized:

  “But I think she just thought, I can't win on that. I will just be silent. Is that democratic? Is that good? Is that leadership?” – E (18:36)

7. Personal Experiences: Historical Weight on German Identity (19:29–25:16)

• Pribyl recounts how her presence as a German journalist in Israel/Palestine shaped interactions, often being personally confronted with stories of trauma and remembrance among Israelis, highlighting the psychological and moral complexity for Germans.
• Palestinians were “super friendly and very much thankful,” aware of German political weight—hoping for, but not expecting, more pressure on Israel.
• Pribyl notes Germany’s substantial financial support to Palestinian causes, often overlooked in the wider conversation.

8. Constraints of Debate and Public Opinion in Germany (25:16–28:10)

• When Pribyl wrote a column calling for empathy for both Israelis and Palestinians, she received private thanks—from those frustrated by the lack of such perspectives in German media.
• Editorial attitudes were summarized in being called “courageous” for broaching even-handed views:

  “I think that sums up the problem of the debate in Germany. Maybe it is shifting...but for quite a long time...it was not possible to see both sides or to be even quite critical towards the Israeli government without being blamed as Antisemite.” – E (26:54)

• Political leaders are “so locked into the Staatsräson...unable in a public forum to ever go off script.” – C (28:10)

9. The EU’s Divisions and Soft Power Limitations (29:20–30:27)

• European inaction and division over Gaza damages the EU’s reputation—especially its soft-power credibility with neighbors like Egypt.
• The EU, with 27 states and a fractured position, was never likely to present a united front; internal divisions (e.g., Belgium/Ireland/Spain pro-Palestinian vs. Germany/Austria/Hungary pro-Israel) were always stark.

10. Media Bias and Incidents on the Ground (30:27–34:38)

• The incident involving Israeli fire on a German diplomat’s delegation was reported euphemistically (“warning shots”) in much of German media, reflecting pro-Israel bias.
• Pribyl describes her own experiences with Israeli military action in the West Bank, emphasizing both the everyday repression of Palestinians and Israelis' general insulation from these realities.

11. The Two-State Solution: Despair and Division (33:24–34:38)

• Daily realities and hardened attitudes on both sides make the two-state solution almost unimaginable in the current political climate.

12. EU Politics: The Association Agreement and Shifting Tones (34:38–41:33)

• Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Velkamp calls (May 2025) for a review of the EU-Israel Association Agreement (a trade deal linking economic relations to human rights), marking a notable shift:

  “For a Dutch conservative minister...to make this turn is quite something.” – C (35:41)

• On May 20xx, the EU agrees to a review (not suspension) of the agreement. Germany and others (Austria, Hungary) are unlikely ever to consent to full suspension; the review is largely symbolic “message sending.”
• Potential measures discussed include suspending parts of the Horizon research program, significant for Israel’s tech sector.

13. Leadership, Silence, and National Biases (41:33–46:26)

• Even as the EU review proceeds, von der Leyen is still criticized for silence and for punting parliamentary questions to a junior Commissioner.
• Compared to her vocal stance on Russia/Ukraine, her reticence on Gaza is notable and controversial.
• The episode closes with a return to the inescapability of national “baggage”:

  “You have this not only with Ursula von der Leyen, you have that all the time in the EU. Everyone comes with, let's call it baggage, or with some sort of, you know, national views on things.” – E (45:00)

• For Germany or von der Leyen, the idea of leading criticism of Israel is simply “not possible” given the historical context.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the stickiness of Staatsräson:

  “It's just it was like the argument always was ended when you say but we've got the Staatsreson the reason of state. Because what else can you say to that?” – E (06:44)

• On Germany’s arms trade and policy:

  “I cannot see where Germany is drawing some red lines...I just can't imagine there is actually a red line.” – E (13:31)

• On the one-sidedness of German public discourse:

  “It was not possible to see both sides or to be even quite critical towards the Israeli government without being blamed as Antisemite. It was at times quite a nasty discussion, I must say, and I don't even think it reflected the opinion of the German people.” – E (27:00)

• On EU unity over Gaza:

  “I think it was naive from the start to expect a united position. They are so deeply divided. You know, you've got on the one side Belgium, Ireland, Spain...and on the other side you've got Hungary, the Czechs and the Germans, of course, and Austria.” – E (29:32)

• On the two-state solution:

  “…when you now hear Europeans always advocating for a two state solution, I mean, go there and look at the reality. It's basically almost beyond any sort of possibility that this could actually ever happen. Definitely not under this government.” – E (34:13)

Important Segments & Timestamps

| Topic | Speaker | Timestamp | |-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------|----------------| | Opening: framing Hamas and Israel’s response | A, B | 00:02–01:38 | | Podcast focus and guest introduction | C, D | 01:31–01:43 | | Germany’s stance and the concept of Staatsräson| C, E | 01:43–06:56 | | Ambiguity/history of Staatsräson in Germany | C, E | 06:56–11:14 | | Germany as second-largest arms supplier | C, E | 11:43–14:01 | | Media and public discourse problem | C, E | 14:01–16:12 | | Von der Leyen’s response and optics | C, E | 16:12–19:29 | | Personal/journalistic experience in Israel | C, E | 19:29–25:16 | | Op-ed, debate stifling, and antisemitism charge| C, E | 25:16–28:10 | | EU divisions over Gaza | C, E | 29:20–30:27 | | Media coverage of Israeli military incidents | C, E | 30:27–34:38 | | Dutch/EU review of the Association Agreement | C, E | 34:38–41:33 | | Von der Leyen’s continued silence | C, E | 41:33–43:12 | | National identity “baggage” in EU leadership | C, E | 45:00–46:26 |

Conclusion

This episode of EU Scream gives a comprehensive, nuanced discussion of the moral, political, and historical challenges Europe—especially Germany—faces in responding to the Gaza war. It skillfully details how Germany’s legacy, formalized through Staatsräson, constrains not only its own leaders but also European institutional responses. It highlights the limits of public discourse, the enduring power of historical trauma, and the multifaceted difficulties in forging a united EU position as the conflict drags on.

The episode is essential listening for anyone seeking to understand the interplay between history, national identity, and contemporary policy dilemmas in European responses to the Israel–Gaza conflict.