The picture shows Netanyahu and Trump

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Strategic Affairs Minister Delmer said that Israel has "full support" from U.S. President Trump, but that the military offensive on Gaza City needs to be completed in a limited time.

Trump isly hoping for an Israeli "fast-paced war decision" and does not want the Israeli and Palestinian Islamic resistance movement (Hamas is) The war was further delayed.

Reports said that during the same meeting, Israeli Chief of General Staff Zamir clashed with Finance Minister Smottrih and National Security Minister Ben-Gwier. Zamir said the Israeli army was unsure how long it would take to evacuate civilians in Gaza City. Smotreh asked the Israeli army to encircle Gaza City so that there would be no water or electricity. Those who did not evacuate "would either starve to death or surrender."

According to another reference source, citing a report on the website of the US "Capitol Hill" Daily on August 23, Trump hinted on the 22nd that Israel's rapid military action may be the best way to save the surviving hostages.

Trump said on the 22nd that not all Israelis want a ceasefire and hostage agreement, and suggested that Israel's rapid military action may be the best way to save the surviving hostages. Trump backed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to launch an offensive to capture Gaza City.

"This has to end. It's extortion, it has to end and we'll see what happens. I actually think that in a lot of ways, if you guys go in, really go in quickly and do it, they're safer," he told reporters in the Oval Office.

Earlier, Trump posted on social media: "Only when we confront and destroy Hamas can we see the remaining hostages return!... Go all out to win, or don't play!"

According to reports,PentagonOn the 22nd, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hagerseth last met with his Israeli counterparts on July 18 and confirmed that the United States "will continue to support Israel's self-defense capabilities, which is part of President Trump's 'Peace through Strength' mission."

Gaza City is located in the northern part of the Gaza Strip and is regarded by Israel as the stronghold of Hamas and the location of detainees. The Israeli army announced on the 20th that it has taken control of the periphery of Gaza City, making military preparations for taking over Gaza City. According to media reports, the military offensive on Gaza City is expected to begin in mid-September.

Further reading

Media: "The conscience of the Western world" again hurts Germany seems to have changed its position

In recent days, from German Foreign Minister Wadfour's visit to Israel to Prime Minister Merz's announcement of a moratorium on exports to Israel of weapons that may be used in Gaza, Germany's position on Israel seems to have changed substantially.

One word that cannot be avoided in discussions of German-Israeli relations in Germany these days is "national rationality". It has risen to such heights because the discussion of it involves a political taboo, and behind it is a huge wound that Germany left in Europe in the second world war. For decades after the war, people have been trying to heal this wound in various ways.

In March 2008, then German Prime Minister Angela Merkel spoke in the Israeli parliament that the historic responsibility for Israeli security was part of Germany¡¯s ¡°national reason.¡±

The German Prime Minister Merts.

"National Reason"

The expression "national reason" comes from the Latin word "ratio status" and has a history of hundreds of years and can be traced back to the debate between political thinkers Machiavelli and Botello over the theory of governance. Machiavelli believed that national interests could be put above all interests, and laws could be abolished and morality suspended if necessary. Botello argued that it was not enough to appear fair and that sovereign power must be based on some form of consent from his subjects. Although these medieval expositions have been divorced from modern political practice, their connotations and associations still have reservations.

Previously, the use of ¡°national reason¡± was often similar to the scenario of terrorists trying to blackmail a country by taking hostages or airplanes, and some would say that ¡°national reason¡± requires that we never agree to their demands, because the country cannot be coerced.¡±

The Social Democrat Karel Schmitt, one of the fathers of the German constitution, made it clear that "national reason" should not take precedence over everything else. Merkel has brought this fading technical term back to political and social reality. In her 2008 speech, she began by congratulating Israel on its 60th anniversary, and then spoke of the special ties between Germany and Israel over the Nazi massacre of 6 million Jews, arguing that Germany has a "special historical responsibility" to Israel. Merkel also added that "these cannot be empty words at a time of trial." She was referring to the Western perspective at the time that Israel was threatened by Iranian nuclear weapons and the situation in Lebanon was unstable. Here, Merkel reiterated her position at the United Nations against Iran's nuclear weapons.

After Merkel left office, the "traffic light" government further simplified her statement and wrote "Israel's security is our 'national rationality'" into the ruling agreement. After Mertz came to power, he continued this practice.

However, the term "national rationality" is not without controversy. Orr, a jurist at the Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science in Germany, believes that it is misplaced to cite "national rationality" on the issue of Israel, because it originally implies that national interests are higher than values such as individual freedom and all other interests, rather than the survival of other countries. Some foreign policy experts also questioned: "Why can't we simply be friends?"

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, data map

In 2012, then-German President Gauck refused to repeat the term "national reason" during his visit to Israel. Reports say that current German President Steinmeier also doubts whether Merkel fully realizes the meaning of this statement. Gauck and Steinmeier's doubts are not directly related to their historical attitudes. Recently, Gauck also said on the program that due to his well-known Nazi guilt after the war, he would never be able to become an enemy of Israel. Steinmeier also said at the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Germany and Israel that after the Holocaust in World War II, Israel's willingness to shake hands was "a gift that Germans have no right to expect," but "we accept this gift and always keep Germany in mind. Guilty and our responsibilities. Sixty years later, I am still grateful and humble for this gift of reconciliation."

¡°Historical responsibility¡± is often used to defend Germany¡¯s diplomatic line, but it does not fully reflect the complexity of the conflict in the Middle East. If support for Israel is truly Germany¡¯s ¡°national reason,¡± it has priority over the existence of all other political options including the preservation of the country¡¯s existence, but in fact any country¡¯s diplomacy is primarily based on defending its own interests.

Historian Benz pointed out that Germany and the European Union regard themselves as some kind of guardians, and "moral shackles" make it difficult for them to take a critical position. The words used by a politician in a specific context may have some rhetorical skills or personal emotional factors, but oversimplified thinking coupled with emotionality will make all voices that are skeptical of the Israeli government's practices easily labeled as "lack of morality" or even "anti-Semitism".

The moral obligation

Germany's special "historical responsibility" is also related to moral obligations, including safeguarding the safety of Jews in Germany and zero tolerance for anti-Semitism. This sincere atonement mentality is a sensitive and obvious feature of contemporary German political culture. Schools and public institutions promote discussion of Nazi crimes day after day, and there is a term such as Holocaust, which refers specifically to the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews.

A good example is the Constitutional Court's interpretation of Article 130 of the Criminal Code,"The crime of inciting national hatred." Article 19, paragraph 1, of the German Constitution has a principle of "prohibiting individual case law", that is, restrictive laws must apply to an unlimited number of circumstances rather than just a specific situation, but there are also exceptions. Article 130 of the Criminal Law reflects a firm reflection on history and criminalizes various acts that may incite hatred or violence against part of the population. It specifically lists paragraph 3: Publicly identifying, denying or downplaying Holocaust is a crime.

In some legal debates, it has been questioned whether Article 130 paragraph 3 is called the Individual Case Law, because it specifically refers to Nazi actions, specific historical periods and populations. The Constitutional Court's interpretation is that the paragraph concerns human dignity and public peace and is not contrary to the Constitution.

Another example is the government¡¯s support for the preservation of Jewish cultural heritage and communities, the promotion of integration, and the contribution to the German Jewish Central Council. Unlike other ethnic minority organizations, the Jewish Central Council is a public entity, i.e. an organization supported by the state, which belongs to the public administration system. The organization was founded in the early 1950s and initially dedicated to seeking state compensation for the victims of the Holocaust, and also played a role in the establishment of relations in Germany. Since 2003, the German government has contributed 22 million euros (about RMB 1,84 billion) annually to its contributions, in accordance with the Treaty revised in 2023.

Morality at home and abroad is thus constraining each other. From the official German point of view, it has always been Israel's pre-1967 borders that need to be protected. But is there a clear distinction between this boundary and other disputed lands in practice? Nowadays, there is a debate in Germany about when the slogan "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" should be regarded as a crime. In 2024, a woman was found guilty by a Berlin district court for shouting "From the river to the sea" during a . The Supreme Court has yet to express its opinion on such cases. At present, the consensus is that if the use of slogans is deemed to beautify terrorist attacks or promote violent destruction of Israel, it can be convicted according to Article 86a of the German Criminal Law, "Using unconstitutional and terrorist organization logos" or Article 140, "Supporting and encouraging crimes". At the same time, however, there is little discussion about the proposition put forward by the current Israeli Knesset for the "river-to-sea" area.

Since October 2023, with the arrival of a new round of Gaza conflict and a long impasse, the other side of Germany¡¯s ¡°moral obligation¡± is a broken conscience and a projected Middle East under a particular filter. Specifically in political practice, a Middle East expert from the German Political and Scientific Foundation pointed out that the two main pillars of Germany¡¯s policy towards Israel are German historical responsibilities and principles such as human rights and international law, and that Israeli military actions in Gaza have violated these principles. A re-balance between these two pillars is undoubtedly necessary and more ethical.

Change of conscience

For historical and moral reasons, Germany has always been benevolent towards Israel, and "national rationality" has long been a firmly established principle in national action that transcends day-to-day political differences.

However, whether this is really good for regional stability and Israeli security has been controversial from the beginning. After returning to Germany, Mueller, who accompanied Wadefur, was interviewed and said that ¡°Germany can¡¯t just warn.¡± Israeli historian Zimmerman argued that the decision to stop providing certain weapons to the Gaza Strip is in the interest of the country: ¡°If you support Israel¡¯s security, you can¡¯t support Israel¡¯s occupation of Gaza. If you support Israel¡¯s security and survival, you must support Israel in some way to establish ties with the Palestinians.¡± ¡°Whether it is to promote regional peace or Israel wants to ensure its long-term survival, a clear political vision is needed. But now, hope is vague, hatred has spread across the Gaza Strip. With force to force each other to surr

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu

What makes many people miserable and puzzled is that since the outbreak of a new round of Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Germany, which has been the "conscience of the Western world" after the war, suddenly seems to have less conscience. At present, Mueller hopes that Israel can cherish the influence of Germany, which is still willing to talk to it, in the face of increasing international isolation. In the program with Gao Ke, the host asked frankly: "Why can't we just find a suitable language for Israel?"

In fact, there is a huge rift between the old and new "consciences". The mantra that has prevailed in Germany since the war is "never again". Often, people fill in the blanks according to their own understanding: no more war, no more madness, no more extremes, and no more genocide. As the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is revealed day after day, there is a debate about whether the situation there should be described as "genocide". The social philosopher Adorno has warned that reflection on history must not stop at forms and slogans, but must be alert to its social and psychological mechanisms.

(The author is a sociologist at the University of Hamburg, Germany)