Alexander Graf Lambsdorff is not taking up an ordinary ambassadorship in Israel. His predecessor, Steffen Seibert, leaves behind German-Israeli relations that were repeatedly strained during his tenure by unusually open conflicts with the Israeli government. When Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar publicly stated shortly before Seibert’s departure that he looked forward to a new ambassador who would strengthen relations, the diplomatic message was difficult to misunderstand.

Alexander Graf Lambsdorff has now been Germany’s ambassador to Israel for just under two months. He arrived in Israel on July 23, 2026. Four days later, his first official appointment took him to Yad Vashem. On August 3, he presented his credentials to President Isaac Herzog in Jerusalem.

After his arrival, Lambsdorff described German-Israeli relations as wonderful and extraordinary. They were rooted in a painful history, but had since developed into cooperation of unprecedented intensity. At the presentation of his credentials Herzog likewise spoke of a strong and vibrant partnership.

These are initially diplomatic signals. Their political significance emerges against the background of what Lambsdorff has taken over. Germany regularly speaks of special responsibility and close friendship, while its former ambassador in Jerusalem himself became the subject of unusually open disputes more than once.

Passende X-Beiträge

Aus dem SCHLAGSEITE X-Archiv

Mena-Watch 19.09.2026 · 07:05 Uhr In »NAZA« werde die israelische Regierung in assoziative Nähe zum Holocaust gerückt, stellt der profil-Journalist Stefan Grissemann fest. Auf die Idee, das zu kritisieren,… Israel MFA 14.10.2026 · 18:45 Uhr Seien Sie jetzt live bei der offiziellen Eröffnungszeremonie der kolumbianischen Botschaft in Jerusalem dabei – mit Außenminister Gideon Sa’ar und dem kolumbianischen Außenminister Omar… Israel MFA 11.10.2026 · 07:55 Uhr Israel leistet nach Erdbeben in Panama humanitäre Hilfe: Trinkwasser und wichtige Lebensmittel werden in Zusammenarbeit mit den örtlichen Behörden geliefert Nach dem Erdbeben, das… Israel MFA 04.10.2026 · 22:30 Uhr Heute hat die britische Grüne Partei eine Resolution verabschiedet, in der Zionismus mit Rassismus gleichgesetzt, der bewaffnete Kampf gegen Israel legitimiert und die Errichtung… Emanuel Fabian 07.10.2026 · 04:17 Uhr Auch nach drei Jahren habe ich nicht das Gefühl, dass es leichter wird. Die Erkenntnis über die Schrecken, die sich an jenem Morgen vor…

Seibert’s video on judicial reform triggered a dispute with Jerusalem

An early conflict flared up in September 2023 over Israel’s highly controversial domestic judicial reform. Seibert attended a public hearing of the Supreme Court on the so-called reasonableness law. It was not his seat in the visitors’ gallery that became the actual problem, but what he did with it.

Seibert published a video in Hebrew from the court. In it, he said that something important for Israeli democracy was happening there. Friends of Israel were following the proceedings at the Supreme Court with great interest, and he himself had wanted to see them. This was more than documenting an appointment. Seibert publicly placed an ongoing and highly controversial Israeli constitutional conflict within a political framework.

That was precisely what Jerusalem viewed as overstepping the mark. An Israeli diplomat confirmed to the Times of Israel that, on the instructions of then-Foreign Minister Eli Cohen, a senior Foreign Ministry official had conveyed Israel’s protest to Seibert. Comparable messages had been sent via the Israeli Embassy in Berlin to the Federal Foreign Office.

Berlin defended Seibert’s conduct as legitimate observation of political developments in the host country. At the same time, the Federal Foreign Office said it could not confirm reports of a formal “official protest” by Israel’s Foreign Ministry.

It is documented that Israel conveyed its displeasure over Seibert’s conduct through diplomatic channels. What was disputed was the formal designation of this process as an “official protest.” The political core is clearer: Seibert not only observed the hearing, but publicly interpreted it as an event of particular significance for Israeli democracy.

Diplomats observe the domestic politics of their host country. However, anyone who publicly assesses an ongoing constitutional conflict in this context leaves the purely observational role behind. That is precisely how Seibert’s appearance in Jerusalem was understood.

Sa’ar makes dispute over Seibert’s X post public

The conflict became even clearer on March 22, 2026. In a single post on X Seibert brought together three different events: the death of Israeli farmer Ofer “Pushko” Moskovitz in Misgav Am, which at that time was still attributed to Hezbollah; hundreds injured by Iranian missile attacks in southern and central Israel; and, afterward, a violent escalation in Palestinian villages that he described as a “violent settler rampage.”

The last part referred to violence following the death of 18-year-old Yehuda Shmuel Sherman from Elon Moreh, who had been killed in a car attack near Homesh. It was precisely this combination that became the diplomatic powder keg: Hezbollah, Iranian rocket fire, and settler violence appeared in a single political picture.

Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar reacted with unusual sharpness. He accused Seibert of being barely able to condemn attacks on Israelis without making the Palestinians the subject as well. Sa’ar literally spoke of Seibert’s “obsession with Jews living in Judea and Samaria.” This fixation, he said, even prevented him from condemning the death of a Jew at the hands of a Palestinian without once again invoking Jews in Judea and Samaria.

Then came the sentence that went beyond the specific dispute: It was good to know that Alexander Graf Lambsdorff was taking over and would strengthen relations between Israel and Germany.

A complete assessment must include the news situation at the time. On the morning of March 22, Moskovitz’s death was initially attributed to a Hezbollah attack. Later that same day, the IDF was already examining the possibility of its own fire. The investigation, completed later, ultimately confirmed that five Israeli artillery shells had accidentally hit Misgav Am and killed Moskovitz.

Seibert’s post was written in the context of the initial reports. This is important for the factual record, but it does not eliminate Sa’ar’s political accusation. His criticism was not directed at the later correction of the cause of death. It was directed at the decision to incorporate settler violence as a counter-image in a post about deaths and injuries in Israel.

Seibert contradicted Sa’ar. He pointed out that he had publicly condemned the Iranian attacks on Israeli civilians and the use of cluster munitions. Germany stood by Israel in this war. He expressly defended his criticism of settler violence.

The conflict was therefore out in the open. The actual point of dispute was not whether Germany was allowed to criticize settler violence. What mattered was the emphasis. Sa’ar objected to the fact that even the condemnation of attacks on Israelis was immediately linked to Israeli misconduct.

His closing remark about Seibert’s successor gave this conflict additional weight. When the foreign minister of the host country publicly expresses his hope that the next ambassador will strengthen bilateral relations, that is more than diplomatic routine surrounding an impending change of personnel.

Alexander Graf Lambsdorff takes over the post with a different profile

Seibert came to Israel as a prominent political outsider and political communicator, whereas Lambsdorff arrives as a career diplomat with experience in Moscow and as a former chairman of the German-Israeli Parliamentary Friendship Group. This guarantees no change of course, but it explains why expectations of a different diplomatic style are associated with him.

Lambsdorff’s tenure begins with Yad Vashem and accreditation

Lambsdorff arrived in Israel on July 23. On July 27, his first official appointment took him to Yad Vashem. There, he expressly referred to the responsibility arising from Germany’s Nazi past for relations with the Jewish people and with Israel.

When he was first publicly introduced, Lambsdorff had already described German-Israeli relations as wonderful and extraordinary. They were built on a very painful history, but had since reached a level of cooperation that was unprecedented. This is the task Alexander Graf Lambsdorff is taking on: continuing this cooperation.

On August 3, formal accreditation by President Herzog followed. Lambsdorff’s tenure has therefore long since moved beyond the phase of a mere personnel announcement. The question is no longer who succeeds Seibert, but how Lambsdorff will actually represent German policy in Jerusalem.

Germany’s rhetoric of friendship meets its political line

This is precisely where his real balancing act begins. On the one hand, the German government describes Israel as a close friend and security partner. In 2026, Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul repeatedly emphasized that Germany stands up for Israel’s existence and security and that this commitment is an unalterable core of bilateral relations.

On the other hand, Berlin continues to pursue a political line that can differ fundamentally from the Israeli government’s position on important issues. The Federal Foreign Office reaffirmed in August 2026 the negotiated two-state solution, rejected changes to the 1967 borders without an agreement by both parties to the conflict, and sharply criticized Israeli settlement plans in Judea and Samaria.

In September, the Federal Foreign Office again stated that, from Germany’s perspective, the two-state solution was the right path toward a lasting resolution of the conflict. Germany also expressly supports the prospect of a future Palestinian state as part of a solution negotiated by both sides.

Lambsdorff must represent precisely this balancing act: extraordinary partnership and Israel’s security on the one hand, German demands for a Palestinian state and clear criticism of Israeli decisions on the other. That is his actual diplomatic problem. Not whether he learns Hebrew or how many memorials he visits.

Lambsdorff does not arrive without his own history with Israel

His previous statements show that Israel’s security debate is not unfamiliar to him. During the massive rocket attacks on Israel in May 2021, Lambsdorff sharply criticized then-SPD chairman Norbert Walter-Borjans because he had linked German support for Israel to political involvement in its defense. In the Bundestag, Lambsdorff described this position as “presumptuous, misplaced, and oblivious to history”.

A complete assessment must likewise note that Lambsdorff does not share every position of Israeli governments. As a parliamentarian, he already represented the German and European line of a negotiated two-state solution and expressly defended political criticism among partners as legitimate.

He is therefore neither a German ambassador who will adopt every position of the Israeli government nor a blank slate. He knows the political areas of conflict, has repeatedly defended Israel in the Bundestag, and at the same time knows the foreign-policy line he must represent for Berlin.

An ambassador cannot rewrite Berlin’s fundamental positions

A change of personnel in Tel Aviv does not alter German foreign policy. The basic lines are set in the Federal Chancellery and the Federal Foreign Office. Lambsdorff can neither unilaterally change Germany’s position on the two-state solution nor Berlin’s position on Israeli settlements.

An ambassador can, however, very much influence the way in which differences become visible to the public. The conflict over Seibert showed how quickly not only the content, but already the weighting of a message itself, can become a political problem.

Lambsdorff’s litmus test will therefore be more concrete than friendly arrival photos: How will the German Embassy publicly weigh matters when Israelis are attacked? How will it behave regarding international and UN initiatives affecting Israel? How quickly and visibly will it respond to Israeli security issues? And how will it present criticism from Berlin without immediately relativizing every signal of solidarity through a countercalculation?

These are not demands for political allegiance. They are benchmarks for how a special partnership constantly invoked by both sides becomes visible in practice.

Seibert’s record does not fit into a simple enemy image

Steffen Seibert’s tenure cannot seriously be told as the story of an ambassador who was fundamentally hostile to Israel. After the Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023, he publicly showed solidarity, sought contact with affected families and campaigned for the hostages’ release. His dealings with the relatives of those abducted became an important part of his work.

That is precisely why the later conflicts with Jerusalem are politically more interesting than the simple catchphrase “shambles.” Seibert was not an enemy of Israel. He was a German ambassador whose public political emphases repeatedly collided head-on with the Israeli government.

The conflict ultimately reached a point at which Gideon Sa’ar publicly expressed hope that Alexander Graf Lambsdorff would take over. That is the political finding that need neither be exaggerated nor played down.

Germany can claim a close security partnership with Israel while also disagreeing on central political issues. For the ambassador, the impact is determined where these two lines meet.

In his first weeks, Alexander Graf Lambsdorff deliberately placed Germany’s historical responsibility and its close partnership with Israel at the center. Whether this will permanently lead to a different diplomatic style will only become clear when solidarity with Israel and political differences with Jerusalem are on the table at the same time. Friendship is not proven in protocol. It shows itself where it is put under strain.