TEHRAN — The ongoing Israeli military campaign against the Gaza Strip, which has claimed the lives of more than 61,000 Palestinians, has sparked global anger and protests—including in German cities.

Despite mounting international condemnation and allegations from UN experts and human rights groups—including some inside Israel—accusing the Israeli army of committing genocide in Gaza, the German government continues to emphasize what it calls Israel’s “right to self-defense.” Germany is the world’s second-largest arms exporter to Israel, which adds complexity to its position.

To discuss Germany’s role in the Gaza conflict, the Tehran Times interviewed Christian Wagner, a German academic and expert in cognitive warfare. Wagner has compared Israel’s campaign against Gaza’s population to fascism. 

Here is the excerpt of the interview:

Israel stands accused of committing genocide in Gaza, yet Germany continues to back Israel. On Friday, Chancellor Friedrich Merz reaffirmed what he calls Israel’s “right to defend itself.” How do you interpret this position in light of international law and the genocide allegations?

First, it must be made clear: What is our collective goal? The goal of humanity and the goal of international law? Is it to allow Israel to be hated by the world? Is it to allow the Palestinian population to suffer longer? Hate must never be our weapon. Hate only creates more hate, and we cannot and must not be like those who create suffering. We must be better, more peaceful, and more level-headed. To solve or even understand the problem on the ground, one must understand the other side, no matter how emotionally contradictory it may feel.  

The situation in Gaza is absolutely disproportionate and clearly shows who the perpetrator and who the victim is. Anyone with a heart cannot support Israel’s campaign of annihilation against the entire population—it strongly resembles what once gave rise to fascism, especially now, 80 years after the end of the Second World War. The UN and human rights bodies were established after the Second World War precisely to prevent such things from happening. Therefore, it is a complete failure of the entire UN and especially Europe to intervene and exert pressure.  
On the other hand, we have a duty to understand Israel for the sake of long-term peace and to take clear steps forward here. It may seem impossible, and sometimes misperception and fantasy are stronger than reality and reason for some in Israel itself. But we all see how the world hates Israel. This hatred will not diminish and will only push the country’s leadership into a corner, making them react more aggressively. Sometimes, therefore, level-headedness and diplomacy are key.  

On Friday, Germany announced the suspension of military exports to Israel that could be used in Gaza after Israel’s security cabinet approved a plan to seize Gaza City. As the world’s second-largest arms exporter to Israel, does this signal a shift in Germany’s policy, or is it merely symbolic?

Germany’s decision to suspend certain military exports is a media and public relations strategy in wording. It will definitely not change anything—the support of the German population for Israel is too strong. In current politics, one cannot focus on short-term decisions or words but must look at long-term strategies and future projections. Geopolitically, such decisions resemble moves on a chessboard: They are not impulsive or even emotional reactions but calculated strategies that anticipate the opponent’s responses and long-term outcomes.  

"Our hearts may have grown very dark in recent years—we all witness the catastrophe in Gaza and the unlawful attacks by Israel and the U.S. on Iran."Moreover, this is not just about Germany-Israel or other states-Israel. The real driving forces behind this war often lie beyond national governments, in the realm of global financial capital. Actors like BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard exert enormous influence on strategic developments and the decision-making power of European politicians, especially in EU leadership. They profit from the arms industry and shape policy through investments. Media narratives also play a role in this ecosystem, often distracting from underlying economic motives and deceiving public perception to maintain the status quo. Therefore, while the suspension may signal a concession to international pressure, it does little to disrupt the deep-rooted financial interests that sustain such conflicts.  

Since the beginning of Israel’s war on Gaza, German cities have witnessed large protests against the war. Have these demonstrations had any tangible impact on Germany’s foreign policy or public debate about its support for Israel?

In media studies, there is a concept called agenda-setting. Political actors decide which topics take priority in public discussion and people’s perception. Pro-Palestinian demonstrations in German cities thus serve as an important catalyst for public discourse and bring the issue into discussion. They amplify underrepresented voices and draw attention to topics like civilian suffering, which might otherwise fade in mainstream media coverage.  

This indirect pressure fosters broader awareness and debate, especially before elections, where public sentiment can create space for nuanced discussions about Germany’s Israel policy. However, the impact is only indirect. To think that demonstrations achieve something directly is far from reality and only happens in fairy tales. Often, economic or internal political power shifts are the reasons for changes.  

Real change requires actions, not rhetoric. Endless discussions and performative politics—like actors in a good drama series—can feign progress without delivering it; what matters are concrete actions. Supporting Palestine—or any humanitarian cause—would be more effective if individuals and groups moved from protests to proactive initiatives. That means gaining economic power, creating entrepreneurial structures, using their networks to pool financial strength, rising economically, and activating lobbying efforts. This power can bring about change.  

And yet, I want to emphasize again: Instead of pitting nations against each other, the focus should be on humanity as a whole and challenging the financial systems that profit from division and inaction. We must reclaim peace through empathy and the intellectual strength of people.  

European leaders have condemned Israel’s use of starvation and excessive force in Gaza, yet they have not taken concrete steps to halt the violence. Why has Europe—including Germany—failed to move from words to action?

There are two key factors. First, new media and the desensitization of people play an increasing role. Despite the immense suffering in Gaza, propaganda is running at full speed, and consumption, social media, even the legalization of cannabis act like opium, dulling the senses. This creates a strong distortion of perception, making people apathetic and unaccountable. Propaganda in today’s world is stronger than ever—algorithms, media bots, and even the latest AI have ideologically driven representations. This affects everyone, including government advisors. And the stronger the distortion, the harder it becomes to develop a rational, causal strategy. If one in Israel believes fairytales like that the other side has evil intentions such as that the population in Gaza is entirely evil, misguided decisions far removed from reality will be made—because they do not correspond to the truth. And it works both sides.

Second, opaque processes take place behind the scenes, beyond public perception. It is not clear which actors have influence and which do not. As a result, democracy is hollowed out from within, and change becomes difficult.  

Germany often frames its support for Israel as a historical responsibility stemming from the Holocaust. How does this reasoning intersect with accusations that Israel is committing mass atrocities today? 

Germany, of course, has a historical responsibility, especially now, 80 years after the war’s end. Yet, Germany’s support for Israel inevitably contradicts the current atrocities in Gaza—a profound moral dilemma. Zionism, in fact, bears strong parallels to fascism.  

And yet, abandoning an ally in such times would simply be dishonorable and cowardly. Rather, an ally in times of crisis is obliged to exert internal pressure and pursue backchannel solutions instead of stabbing them in the back. We must stand by our words and self-imposed duties. But this internal pressure must also achieve something and absolutely stop this war. Yet, as things stand, they seem unable to do so and have no voice in Israel.  

Therefore, this stance must evolve. Blind loyalty jeopardizes the principles of justice born from the lessons of the Holocaust. But the real tension stems not just from history but from today’s financial power structures, where global capital influences political decisions through risk investments and exacerbates conflicts. By focusing on these economic forces—rather than nation-states, religions, or specific groups—we can combat the root causes of atrocities without betraying moral obligations. This would align support with universal human rights.  

In light of growing international calls for an arms embargo on Israel, what pressures—political, legal, or public—could realistically push Germany to completely halt its military cooperation?

Israel has the right to self-defense, and with the growing global hatred of Israel, halting military cooperation is one path—but it is questionable whether this is the realistic path. We all know that the powers in Israel are committing atrocities and seem to have a very distorted perception that leads to inhumanity. But we must not cloud our own perception and pursue unrealistic demands or wishes. Instead, we must be realistic and seek strategic solutions, particularly those that weaken Israel’s military offensives in the long term and bring about a turning point.  

"Palestinians have the right to demand the return of their stolen land."It’s about cooperation and win-win. Our hearts may have grown very dark in recent years—we all see the catastrophe in Gaza and the unlawful attacks by Israel and the U.S. on Iran—but we must still be better, intending peace. Likewise, the Palestinian state unquestionably has the right to self-defense, even the right to demand the return of their stolen land. The two-state solution should have been implemented long ago.  

With the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court both pursuing cases related to Israel’s actions, how might these legal proceedings influence Germany’s stance?

International legal proceedings like those of the ICJ and ICC have the potential to challenge Germany’s stance, but their direct impact often remains limited in times of war. And yet, they are crucial in the battle for information. Decisions made by neutral judges can increase internal pressure and thus serve as leverage in the struggle for perception and knowledge. Such proceedings could expose violations and put pressure on the European leadership through international attention and domestic debates.  However, in the end only actions matter. 

And the real influence depends on more powerful forces—particularly financial capital, which profits from instability. If the proceedings reveal how actors like investment firms profit from arms deals and reconstruction, they could indirectly force policy shifts by prioritizing economic interests over legal or moral arguments. For Germany, this would mean reconciling historical obligations with evolving international norms—but only if distorted narratives can be broken.