The closure of the Israeli embassy in Dublin has sparked international headlines, with Israeli media across the political spectrum publishing a range of analyses on the move’s causes, value and possible consequences.
Some Israeli columnists and correspondents have suggested that minister for foreign affairs Gideon Saar’s decision to close the embassy, citing “anti-Semitic actions and rhetoric”, is notable given that countries with similar stances to Ireland remain unscathed.
Israel’s longest-running newspaper, the liberal Haaretz, published an article arguing that the main result of the embassy’s closure is the headlines generated, and “perhaps that was the intention from the start”.
“Saar is looking for attention-grabbing gimmicks – and he found one in shutting down the Dublin embassy,” the analysis by Amir Tibon read.
Although arguing Israel “has its reasons” to be angry with the Irish Government, the piece described the logic behind the closure while maintaining embassies in Spain and Norway, both of which recognised the state of Palestine alongside Ireland, as “hard to understand”.
Tibon argued that Ireland was chosen to be “made an example of”, a choice made by a minister fighting for political relevance “after a devastating collapse in public support”, citing recent poll results.
A comment piece carried in the Jerusalem Post, Israel’s most-read English news site, meanwhile, argued that on an “emotional level”, the decision, “makes sense”.
“It makes less sense, however, on a practical and strategic level,” it read.
The piece by Herb Keinon argued that Ireland has been an “implacable diplomatic foe of Israel”, one that is “always among the harshest critics in the EU, consistently voting against it at the UN”.
[ Why Israel is closing its embassy in Ireland and what will happen nextOpens in new window ]
The piece further claimed that hostility has intensified since October 7th, manifesting itself in Ireland’s recognition of a Palestinian state and its joining South Africa’s petition against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
“Because of this hostile policy,” the piece said that many Israelis would be satisfied with the decision to close the embassy in Ireland.
However, it argued the embassy is a tool for democracy, and democracy is not only done with friends “but also, perhaps especially, with those who are unfriendly”.
It goes further in questioning why embassies remain in Norway and Spain, as well as South Africa, “which is arguably even more hostile” than Ireland.
Israeli business newspaper, Globes, on the other hand, explored the potential harm the embassy closure will have on trade between the two countries, worth billions each year.
Writing that Israel’s ministry for foreign affairs is taking “one of the most severe steps in the diplomatic procedures book”, it noted that it is the first embassy closure in a member state of the EU, Israel’s biggest trade partner.
Ofir Angel, chairman of the Israel-Ireland Chamber of Commerce, is quoted in the article describing the closure as a “wretched development”, adding that both countries are now competing for “investors as well as for global public opinion”.
