In a dramatic move, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar earlier this week ordered the closure of Israel’s embassy in Ireland, while announcing the opening of a new one in Moldova. Experts recognize that Ireland’s attitude towards Israel is indeed the harshest in Europe. Unlike other critical countries, among them Spain or Belgium, where the government cannot ignore a hard core of support for Israel, in Ireland, all major parties are critical to hostile, as is the media, both traditional and social.
In view of that, the step taken by the minister would appear to be fitting. Some would say that given Ireland’s past conduct, it even came too late. I beg to disagree.
The move was motivated by Ireland’s recent decision to join South Africa in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in accusing Israel of genocide. However, Israel has not taken comparable action against Mexico or Spain, which have also formally joined the case, and this inconsistency raises questions.
It behooves us to remember that Ireland is an influential member of the European Union (EU) and thus has a say in the structure’s overall relationship with Israel. The EU is Israel’s largest trading partner; and the two countries have extensive trade relations, some €4 billion in 2024. Both are hi-tech centers, therefore Intel Israel and Intel Ireland work in cooperation, the Israeli software company Wix employs hundreds in Ireland, and so on. Moreover, there is a small but active Jewish community; in recent years, there have been Jewish cabinet ministers representing all three major parties.
Closing an embassy in protest is a rare and extreme step
Despite revelations about his Nazi past, in 1986 Austria elected Kurt Waldheim, a former UN secretary-general, to be its president. Nevertheless, Israel did not close its offices in Vienna but took other action. It downgraded the relationship, and the mission was headed for several years by a charge d’affaires. He was a senior diplomat who lived in the ambassador’s residence and was driven in the ambassador’s car. But until Waldheim completed his term and Israel’s representative presented credentials to the new president, there was no ambassador and relations were not full.
Also, closing an embassy is easy. Reopening, not always. Due to a crisis in relations with South Korea in the 1970s and other considerations, then-Israeli foreign minister Moshe Dayan decided to close the embassy in Seoul. As Korea blossomed into a major economy, it refused to allow Israel to reopen the embassy, and until 1992 relations were conducted long distance.
If all this were not enough – of course, no situation or comparison is ever perfect – with the goal of diplomacy being to further interests while, if necessary, overcoming difficulties: As Israel is facing unprecedented international adversity, is leaving the game helpful?
Or is it better to conduct dialogue with critics, challenging as it may be? Will turning our back on Ireland help Israel? Does leaving the arena solely to critics make sense?
In view of all the above, I believe that the major benefit of the closure is to be found in demonstrative headlines and that the loss to Israel will prove greater than the gain.
The writer was Israel’s first ambassador to the Baltic states after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, ambassador to South Africa, and congressional liaison officer at the embassy in Washington. She is a graduate of Israel’s National Defense College.