By Gudrun Dometeit

‍

‍

Sure, election campaign times have their own laws. Stirring up emotions, promising your own clientele the moon, showing up your political opponent, avoiding sensitive issues. This election campaign should actually be different this time, more serious, because the situation is more serious in terms of domestic politics, the economy and foreign policy. Because there is a lot on people's minds, above all migration. Union chancellor candidate Friedrich Merz, who wants a restrictive law to limit immigration before the Bundestag elections on 23 February, is of course also aware of this. He wants to show himself to be a strong decision-maker, at the risk of losing. But he has certainly won the lead in the debate. His political rivals are jumping on board - for lack of ideas or initiatives of their own. Or have you ever heard of one from Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz? We've done everything well, keep it up!

‍

‍

What is really annoying, however, is that the discussion is suddenly less about migration and more about an issue that political and media Berlin likes to delve into again and again: the relationship with the AfD. Because Merz could probably only win a majority for his move with their votes. I don't want to downplay this, but is it really the most pressing problem that concerns voters right now? Entrepreneurs have just called for a nationwide economic warning day for the first time today because they are seriously concerned about Germany as an industrial location. Citizens are groaning under bureaucratisation, high taxes and expensive energy. Why have none of the candidates for chancellor so far proposed a ‘minister for cutting red tape’, based at the chancellor's office, with powers to intervene in all departments? That would be something. Or a fundamental pension reform, not a minor reform? Zero, not an issue.

‍

This also applies to foreign policy, with the exception of reactions to Donald Trump's announcements. How will we deal with China in the future? How can peace be achieved in Ukraine in practice? Do we really want nuclear weapons in our own country? Zero, no discussion. And shouldn't we actually be discussing a very specific German issue, what the phrase ‘Israel's security is the raison d'être of the German state’ actually means? The CDU, SPD and FDP have it in their programmes, this phrase coined by Angela Merkel in 2008 in front of the Knesset in Jerusalem. In a keynote speech on foreign policy last week, Merz stated with verve that he wanted to revive the principle and lift a de facto ban the export of weapons to Israel. With regard to the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he stated that, in his opinion, it was “inconceivable” that he was in danger of being arrested during a trip to Europe and Germany.

‍

But what does that mean? No one denies Israel the right to self-defense following the brutal attack by Hamas in October 2023, but most international law experts now agree that Netanyahu's campaign went far beyond that and violated international humanitarian law because of the many civilian deaths. That Germany is so happy to hold up in other cases. Is the government of Israel above the law? Because of its particular historical responsibility, Germany's solidarity belongs to Israel, of course, but should it also apply unconditionally to every government? Even an unscrupulous power politician who, by destroying the Gaza Strip, planted the seeds for the next generation of terrorists and has certainly not increased Israel's security?

‍

Well, it's all too complicated for an election campaign, I understand. And tricky anyway. But if Merz actually means a change in foreign and security policy in the event of his election, then more than less debate is needed, including on controversial issues.

‍

‍