Well, the "Safari" trip which is usually done in Africa, is سفاري in Arabic. However, I think the "safari" is probably derived from the word for travel in Arabic سفر (safar). So, the word here in the sentence is not "safari" but "travel" (and it is safara because it is in accusative status so it ends in -a).
Bonus: to travel = سافر (sáfara).
When I learned that سفر was the Arabic for travel, I was delighted to realise that here was yet another English word - safari - of Arab provenance. But is سفاري also an Arab word? It seems odd to have a word that designates travel to a particular country... Oh my god, I've just looked up its origin, and it seems it comes from Swahili, where it just means "travel", which of course they borrowed from Arabic. What a long way round!
Which is the future tense? "I'd like" is short for "I would like" and, formally, that's the conditional mood. I say "formally" because it's not actually part of a condition, but an idiomatic way for English to express a tentative wish. But it wouldn't be a correct translation of the Arabic because أُحِبّ اَلْسَّفَر إِلى أَلْمانْيا implies that the speaker has already travelled to Germany, whereas "I'd like to" has no such implication.
It's the conditional mood but it's expressing a desire for an unrealized future action. This is semantics, because I would like does speak about the future, but not in a concrete manner. Arabic doesn't have as many modals as English, as such certain meanings are implied by the verb without an auxiliary.
I don't disagree that it expresses a desire for a future action (but aren't all future actions unrealised, while they're future?) I was being formalistic. Of course there's the idea of future in the expression "I'd like to...". I was just saying that it wasn't a future tense. Let's call a spade a spade.