1 week ago
42
ARTICLE AD BOX
For years, Ireland has been an implacable diplomatic foe of Israel, always among the harshest critics in the EU, consistently voting against it at the UN.
By HERB KEINON DECEMBER 16, 2024 19:52 Updated: DECEMBER 16, 2024 19:55
An Israeli flag flutters outside the embassy of Israel in Dublin, Ireland, December 16, 2024
(photo credit: REUTERS/CONOR HUMPHRIES)
On an emotional level, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar’s decision on Sunday to shutter Israel’s embassy in Ireland makes sense. It makes less sense, however, on a practical and strategic level.
Why does it make sense emotionally? Because for years, Ireland has been an implacable diplomatic foe of Israel, always among the harshest critics in the EU, consistently voting against it at the UN.
This hostility intensified since October 7, manifesting itself in Dublin’s recognition of a Palestinian state and its recent move to join South Africa’s petition against Israel at the International Court of Justice, even incredibly asking the court to “broaden its interpretation of what constitutes the commission of genocide by a state” to essentially ensure that Israel fits the genocide bill.
Missing the point
Because of this hostile policy, many Israelis probably reacted with satisfaction to Sa’ar’s decision, thinking to themselves, “This will show them,” or “They don’t deserve to have an Israeli embassy there anyhow.”
Except that an embassy is not a prize; it is a tool for diplomacy. And diplomacy is not only done with friends—in the same breath that Sa’ar announced the closing of the embassy in Dublin, he announced Israel was opening one in Moldova, a friendly country—but also, perhaps especially, done with those who are unfriendly.
If Israel were to close embassies in all the countries around the world that are diplomatically hostile, its number of representations would be dramatically reduced. If having a friendly foreign policy toward Israel is a criterion, then why does Israel still have embassies in Norway, Belgium, and Spain?
Norway and Spain have also recognized a Palestinian state, and their criticism against Israel is often equally as harsh as that of Ireland. The same is true of Belgium and smaller EU states as well, such as Malta and Luxembourg. And how about South Africa? Why close the embassy in Dublin because of the government’s anti-Israel policies—and many of their policies are indeed anti-Israel—but not in Pretoria, which is arguably even more hostile?
Why not? Simply because Israel’s policy for decades is that you open embassies around the world, you don’t close them. Even when things get difficult. Even if the atmosphere—as in Ireland—is toxic. Even in the midst of civil war. When you have an embassy, you have a channel of communication with the government, the media, and the public. It’s a crucial diplomatic asset. Close that embassy, and you lose that.
It is difficult to argue with what Sa’ar wrote in his statement announcing the closure of the embassy: “The actions and antisemitic rhetoric used by Ireland against Israel are rooted in the delegitimization and demonization of the Jewish state, along with double standards. Ireland has crossed every red line in its relations with Israel.”
He’s right. But it is precisely because of this that it is important to keep the doors of the embassy open: to call out that antisemitic rhetoric, to fight the double standards and hypocrisy.
Stay updated with the latest news!
Subscribe to The Jerusalem Post Newsletter
Moreover, diplomacy is a marathon, and things change. Today’s government in Dublin may change tomorrow, and with it, perhaps some of the animus. And then, if you want to reopen the embassy, it is not always that easy to do.
In 1978, for example, then-foreign minister Moshe Dayan decided to close the embassy in Seoul because of budgetary reasons, reportedly saying that it was not an important enough country for Israel to maintain an embassy.
Shortly thereafter, the South Korean economy, “along with other Asian tigers,” took off, and Israel wanted to reopen. This time, Seoul played hard to get, not giving the okay until 1992, saying that it was afraid that housing an Israeli embassy would damage its ties with the Arab world.
Regarding Ireland, it was one of the last countries in Europe that opened an Israeli embassy—the Irish have long been hostile to Israel, seeing the conflict here through the prism of their own experience with the British, and simplistically equating us to the British and the Palestinians to the “freedom-loving IRA.”
Israel finally opened an embassy in Dublin in 1993, the same day the PLO was invited to open an office there, and after opposition to the move was voiced because of a concern Ireland would lose Arab markets as a result and also because of the high cost of providing security for the embassy.
While the Irish government on Sunday expressed “deep disappointment” at Israel’s move, some voices in the ardently anti-Israel Sinn Féin Party welcomed it. This led one Israeli official to quip, “If you’re making Sinn Féin happy, you’re doing something wrong.”
While Israel has, for budgetary reasons, closed embassies and consulates around the world before—in the last decade, it closed consulates in Philadelphia, Rio de Janeiro, and Marseille, and an embassy in El Salvador all because of budgetary constraints—this is one of the only times the move has been taken because of unhappiness with a country’s policies.
That Ireland has announced it has no intention of closing its embassy in Tel Aviv creates an asymmetry in the relationship: Irish diplomats will be able to make their voices heard in Jerusalem and meet Israeli officials and members of civil society, while Israeli diplomats — because of Jerusalem’s decision —will not be able to do the same in Ireland.
Moreover, the closure of the embassy leaves Israel’s supporters in Ireland, as well as the Jewish community and Israeli expatriate community there—most working in high tech—without an embassy to give them backing and support when needed.
The move marks a much more aggressive form of diplomacy than has typically been the norm, a style of diplomacy that Sa’ar’s predecessor, Israel Katz, crafted to deal with countries—such as Poland and Turkey—pursuing policies against Israel’s interests.
After years, when Israel walked on eggshells around Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Katz took off the gloves and responded with AI-generated caricatures on Twitter to Erdogan’s outbursts against Israel. Though this did not necessarily serve Turkish-Israeli ties, it did play to a large part of the Israeli public wanting to see its leaders stand up to the very hostile Turkish leader. In other words, it was populist -- driven to a large extent by domestic politics.
Sa’ar seems to be taking a page out of Katz’s playbook with this step, playing to his base but not necessarily advancing Israeli diplomacy.
It’s understandable why this step was taken. Jerusalem’s anger at Ireland is justified. But diplomacy is not about folding up the flag. Rather, it is about making your case, even—perhaps especially—in the most hostile environments.
In a few weeks, Dublin will have a Palestinian representation, but not an Israeli one—meaning Israel has willfully ceded the playing field in Ireland to the Palestinians and to local anti-Israel elements. There’s a term in diplomacy for this: it’s called cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.
English (US) ·