EUobserver’s recent reporting on Katharina von Schnurbein’s closed-door meeting with EU ambassadors in Tel Aviv has revealed a serious breach of institutional responsibility at the heart of the European Commission.
Von Schnurbein, who has served as the EU’s coordinator on combating antisemitism since 2015, warned in that meeting that sanctions against Israel could feed “rumours about Jews.”
According to the leaked diplomatic cable, she also downplayed reports of starvation in Gaza, questioned the legitimacy of EU protests, and repeated talking points from the Israeli government about media bias and Hamas manipulation.
None of these claims is backed by her mandate or by evidence.
More importantly, they reflect a troubling shift in the function of her office: from protecting Jewish communities in Europe to protecting a foreign government from legal and political scrutiny.
This is not merely a case of personal bias.
Von Schnurbein has publicly stated she grew up in a home in Bavaria that was "very pro-Jewish, pro-Israel" in the Times of Israel.
Personal affinities are not inherently disqualifying, but when they begin to shape the actions of an EU official beyond the limits of their role, they present a serious institutional risk.
The EU’s coordinator on antisemitism was never intended to act as a diplomatic shield.
The position was established to strengthen protections for Jewish life across the EU, support education and prevention initiatives, and advise on security.
Using it to cast doubt on international humanitarian law or to discourage policy tools such as sanctions undermines the legal integrity of the Commission and compromises the mandate itself.
To suggest that holding Israel accountable could itself be antisemitic is to weaponise a human rights framework in defence of power, not principle
Von Schnurbein’s recent intervention is especially troubling in the context of the EU’s ongoing review of its Association Agreement with Israel.
That agreement grants Israel preferential trade access, including for arms and surveillance technologies.
The review comes at a time when the International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel may plausibly be committing genocide in Gaza. The European External Action Service (EEAS) has also raised human rights concerns.
To suggest that holding Israel accountable could itself be antisemitic is to weaponise a human rights framework in defence of power, not principle.
In 2021, von Schnurbein herself correctly stated that “to hold Jews responsible for the actions of the government of Israel is unacceptable.”
Yet her recent remarks reverse this logic, effectively implying that criticism of the Israeli government endangers Jews and should be treated as suspect.
This conflation endangers Jewish communities rather than protecting them. It reinforces the antisemitic trope that Jews are collectively responsible for the actions of a state, while also turning legal critique into taboo.
According to EUobserver’s reporting, several ambassadors pushed back during the meeting.
One said plainly: “To bring up attacks on hospitals is not antisemitic. These are facts.”
Others warned against blurring the line between legitimate criticism and hate speech. Their intervention underscores what is at stake: the right to uphold international law and human rights without fear of being smeared as antisemitic.
The commission must act swiftly and decisively to repair the damage and safeguard the credibility of its antisemitism mandate. This is not a matter of political alignment. It is a question of institutional integrity.
To restore institutional credibility, the commission must take three urgent steps.
First, the commission should publicly clarify the limits of the coordinator’s mandate.
It is not the role of the antisemitism coordinator to interpret foreign policy, assess international conflicts, or weigh in on EU sanctions. Her office was not created to serve as a back channel for lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.
Second, an independent review should be launched to assess whether von Schnurbein’s actions in this case were appropriate and whether safeguards are needed to prevent similar breaches in the future.
Third, the commission should reaffirm the distinction between racism and rights-based advocacy.
Criticism of a state’s military conduct, particularly when grounded in international legal findings, is not hate speech. It is a legitimate form of rights-based advocacy.
Mislabeling it as hate speech weakens the EU’s ability to fight real antisemitism and erodes trust in its institutions.
This moment demands clarity. Antisemitism remains a growing threat across Europe, and fighting it is a vital obligation.
But that fight must remain principled and legally grounded.
If the commission allows one of its own to conflate Jewish identity with a state’s actions and blur law with politics, it risks turning the antisemitism mandate into a tool for impunity.
The credibility of the EU’s human rights commitments and the safety of Jewish and non-Jewish communities alike depend on drawing that line clearly.
This year, we turn 25 and are looking for 2,500 new supporting members to take their stake in EU democracy. A functioning EU relies on a well-informed public – you.
Alon Sahar is the author of Staatsräson Monitor, a newsletter critically examining German-Israeli relations, and an award-winning independent researcher, strategist, and filmmaker. His commentary has appeared in outlets including Der Spiegel, Mediapart, Der Freitag, and The Jerusalem Post.
Alon Sahar is the author of Staatsräson Monitor, a newsletter critically examining German-Israeli relations, and an award-winning independent researcher, strategist, and filmmaker. His commentary has appeared in outlets including Der Spiegel, Mediapart, Der Freitag, and The Jerusalem Post.