By common consent, never before had Germany become more present in the Middle East. Since the start of the war, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Analena Burbok, has visited the region for the ninth time since the start of the war.

Aware of both the special historical character of German-Israeli relations and the special responsibility to find solutions to problems that have the potential to affect the European south in various ways, Berlin is acting in addition to the persistent diplomatic efforts of the Biden administration and the West in general.

While the international actor, prominently the USA, emphasizes the immediate achievement of a truce in the Gaza Strip, Germany expresses its interest in the practical sustainability of the post-war architecture, declaring its willingness to strengthen Western designs.

Additional presence

German “supplementary” intentions became more noticeable for the first time in early January. At the time, Israeli state media commented with interest on Germany’s willingness to deploy its own “deterrent military force” in areas of South Lebanon.

The alleged German proposal was met with condescending surprise on the part of the Israelis, who, after all, were not surprised by Beirut’s curt refusal. On the contrary, enthusiastic was the acceptance of a brave German funding to the regular Lebanese army, with the prospect of recapturing South Lebanon, when the moment of application of no. 1701/2006 of the Security Council decision.

Nevertheless, the (largely unexpected) German interest was perceived as a “new script” of Berlin’s foreign policy, which seemed willing to fill the “French void” created by the recent political realignments in Paris – without, of course, reach the point of replacing the historical role of France in the intra-Lebanese events or the multi-year American mediation effort under Amos Hochstein.

However, the formation of a constructive “supplementary Western presence” in the Middle East emerges as a central pillar of action of Mrs. Burbock’s repeated visits, during which German Middle Eastern policy tends to gradually acquire special characteristics.

The demand for “two states”

The choice of Riyadh as the first stop of the German Foreign Minister’s recent tour was not accidental. Both Germany and the West in general have already prescribed for the Saudi factor a framework role for the settlement of the Palestinian issue on the basis of the “two-state solution”.

Although little has been announced from Burbok’s contacts, Riyadh’s standing condition that “bold forward moves” on this solution be made, before Israeli-Saudi relations are normalized and the kingdom’s active presence in post-war Gaza, perhaps through its participation, is known. in a pan-Arab transitional administration of the enclave.

The German foreign minister also expressed the German commitment to the “two-state” solution in Jordan. However, in addition to the significant increase in German financial aid to this country, it was interesting to note that its Jordanian counterpart, Ayman Safadi, said that he “understands Berlin’s historical commitments towards the Israeli state”, but Berlin must separate the his position vis-à-vis the particular Israeli government, which, especially after the war began, is even more opposed to the two-state idea.

In exactly the same context, the contacts with the Palestinian Authority began, with the technocrat Prime Minister and its counterpart, Mohammad Mustafa, who emphasized the need for the continuation of the German economic presence, which will be accompanied by the stimulation of Ramallah’s request to regain political control in Gaza “next day”.

Accomplished realities

By contrast, in Israel, Ms Burbok’s meetings with her Israeli counterpart Israel Katz and Defense Minister Yoav Gallad did not receive much press coverage – and perhaps not by accident. In the current Israeli view, both the US and the West in general – including Germany – have not established that the changes on the ground in Gaza, or those that occur later on the Lebanese front, will be permanent in nature.

According to the same view, the division between “northern” and “southern” Gaza is a fait accompli of last March. The de facto “dead zone” between northern Gaza and Israel was established last December. Control over the “Philadelphia Axis” has become the main issue, while any discussion of the prospect of a “two-state solution” is perceived as “rewarding terrorism.”

The tactic of providing a “supplementary Western mediation” while covering economic needs with the perspective of strengthening confidence-building measures for the foundation of a new security architecture in the Middle East, significantly updates Berlin’s foreign policy. However, the current sensitive circumstances combined with the fluidity of mediation efforts by the US, Egypt and Qatar are expected to be taken into account by the German decision-making centers in view of upcoming further initiatives.