Steffen Seibert in the spotlight: Israel’s foreign minister attacks the German ambassador

This incident exposes deep rifts in what is typically a close Germany-Israel relationship. Steffen Seibert, the German ambassador in Tel Aviv, has come under heavy fire from Jerusalem. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar attacked the former German government spokesperson in a way that has shocked diplomatic circles. Saar accuses Seibert of having an obsession—a "fixation," as described in the heated exchange—with Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria, the West Bank. For a top diplomat, such a public rebuke is nothing short of a declaration of war.

An unusual exchange of blows

The words coming out of the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem landed with the precision and force of a political sledgehammer. Steffen Seibert, who once shaped former Chancellor Angela Merkel's communications with stoic composure, is suddenly at the centre of a storm. The accusation: his critical stance on settlement projects is a disregard for Israeli sovereignty. Saar's allegations are not just a personal attack on Seibert. They target the very foundation of Germany's policy towards Israel, which is traditionally underpinned by an almost sacred raison d'état.

Those familiar with history know there have always been moments when German-Israeli relations faced severe tests. Old records from archives show how, for example, in the 1970s, diplomatic tug-of-wars over recognition and critical voices from West Germany caused friction in Israel. Back then, the disputes often revolved around the Middle East conflict and the question of how far the young German democracy could go in voicing criticism. What is happening now is a new level of escalation.

Fault lines are becoming visible

To outsiders, it might seem like a sudden falling out. But a closer look reveals deep fault lines:

• The settlement issue: This is the biggest bone of contention. While the Israeli government under Prime Minister Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Saar pushes ahead with settlement construction, the German government—represented by Steffen Seibert—maintains the international law position that these settlements are illegal.
• The tone in politics: Saar's attack on Seibert is not just a critique of political substance. It is an affront to diplomatic etiquette. Publicly accusing an ambassador of having a "fixation" is a breach of protocol that severely strains the working relationship.
• Divergent expectations: In Israel, a German ambassador is often expected to show more "understanding" than other diplomats. Seibert, who as the son of a Jewish family from Hamburg has a unique personal background, navigates a fine line here between German raison d'état and critical solidarity.

Between Berlin and Jerusalem: A special relationship under pressure

The role of the German ambassador to Israel has always been more than just a classic diplomatic post. Steffen Seibert approaches this responsibility with a seriousness that has earned him respect in both Berlin and Tel Aviv. However, the current conflict shows that the so-called "raison d'état"—the commitment that Israel's security is part of Germany's identity—does not shield them from political disputes.

Reactions in Germany are understandably strong. Concerned tones are heard from the Foreign Office in Berlin. Efforts are being made to de-escalate, but the verbal outburst from Jerusalem cannot simply be dismissed. Saar, a known hardliner, has not only targeted Seibert with his attack but has also upset the delicate balance of German-Israeli relations. For the former government spokesperson, this is a test like none he has faced in his long career. He must now prove that he can remain a reliable point of contact in this new, harsher political landscape in the Middle East.

What remains is a bitter aftertaste. The dispute over Steffen Seibert is more than just a personal conflict. It is symptomatic of the fact that the era when Germany and Israel could resolve diplomatic differences behind closed doors may well be over. The public in both countries will be watching closely to see whether this rift can be repaired—or whether the "fixation" of the dispute ultimately wins out.