Germany consulted with Israel before its defense at ICJ: Reports

BERLIN

The German government consulted with Israel and decided jointly on what would be disclosed before presenting its defense last April at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case brought by Nicaragua accusing Germany of “supporting Israel’s genocide in Gaza.”

According to a report by Stern magazine, correspondence from Germany’s Ministry of Defense shows that consultations with Israel took place prior to Germany’s defense at the ICJ.

According to the report, Germany's representative informed the Court that Israel did not receive any combat weapons from the German army's stockpiles in 2023. However, documents obtained from the Defense Ministry raise questions about whether this statement was complete.

During the hearing on April 8, 2024, Nicaragua’s representative criticized the delivery of 10,000 units of 120-millimeter precision ammunition for Israeli tanks from German army stockpiles at Israel’s request.

The German representative reportedly confirmed this request but said its delivery to Israel was still under review.

The report notes that Germany’s representative told the Court that “the German army had only provided medical aid supplies and helmets” to Israel.

While this could suggest that no weapons or ammunition were supplied to Israel from German army stockpiles in 2023, Stern and Drop Site reported that the documents in their possession cast doubt on that claim.

The report also reveals that the German government, at least in part, coordinated with Israel on what information would be disclosed in court.

It cites a statement submitted by the Defense Ministry to the Cologne Administrative Court on Jan. 29, 2025, confirming that “in consultation with the relevant state (Israel), the German government decided to disclose, during the hearing in The Hague, details beyond those contained in the arms export report.”

The report indicates that this referred to medical aid supplies and helmets provided from the German army’s stockpiles, noting that the semiannual arms export report does not include detailed information about weapons and equipment provided from these reserves.

The Defense Ministry reportedly argued that data on weapons and equipment supplied from army stockpiles could not be disclosed for confidentiality reasons, warning that doing so “would significantly damage the trust between Germany and Israel.”

The European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) told Stern that Germany’s information policy is problematic, criticizing the disclosure of details to the ICJ only with Israel’s approval.

The organization said this raised the possibility that other supplies not mentioned in the official statements may have existed.

The ECCHR emphasized that the international court might have only been provided with information authorized by Israel.

- Nicaragua’s case against Germany

Nicaragua filed a case against Germany at the ICJ on March 1, 2024, accusing Berlin of facilitating genocide by providing political, financial, and military support to Israel.

During hearings in April 2024, Nicaragua argued that Germany was the second-largest supplier of weapons to Israel and that it was impossible for Berlin not to know that this ammunition was being used in what it described as genocide in Gaza.

Nicaragua also noted that Germany had cut aid to Palestinians while continuing to supply Israel with tank shells, drone components, and naval munitions.

Germany rejected the allegations that it was supporting genocide, insisting that its arms exports complied with international law and were subject to strict licensing procedures.

The ICJ ruled that there was “no urgency requiring the imposition of provisional measures,” but noted that civilians in Gaza were being deprived of food and other basic necessities on a widespread and prolonged basis.

The court stressed that “states supplying arms to a region where genocide or other war crimes are being committed may risk being held responsible” for those crimes.

After the ICJ rejected Nicaragua’s request for provisional measures, the case continues as the court examines Nicaragua’s substantive claims before issuing a final ruling.