Israel’s Irish embassy closure: ‘Short-term gestures, long-term losses’ - opinion

In 1978, then-Israeli foreign minister Moshe Dayan closed Israel’s embassy in Seoul, reportedly in response to Korea’s pro-Arab positions following the oil crisis. It would take 14 years, until 1992, before Israel could re-establish its diplomatic presence there. On the other hand, and in spite of the antisemitic “Zionism equals racism” resolution in 1976, Israel chose not to leave the United Nations and stayed to fight in its corner, working hard to create later diplomatic successes. 

Israel has announced the closure of its embassy in Ireland with the decision drawing criticism from diplomatic, political, and local community leaders. This decision is particularly strange in the light of other countries, with equally negative stances on Israel, in which Israeli embassies remain open and functioning. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar’s explanation that the Irish government in his view is antisemitic does not justify the move.

Widespread criticism

Former Foreign Minister Yair Lapid frames the closure as a strategic surrender: “The decision to close the Israeli embassy in Ireland is to give victory to antisemitism and anti-Israeli organizations.” Perhaps not surprising given his job as head of the opposition to the government. However, he is not alone.

The leadership of the Irish Jewish community has also spoken out. Maurice Cohen, chair of the Jewish Representative Council (JRC) of Ireland, emphasizes the personal toll, “It will have a deeply personal impact on many Irish citizens with Israeli roots, including members of our own community.” 

Chief Rabbi of Ireland Yoni Wieder warns that the closure “will be a blow for Israeli individuals and families living in Ireland, many of whom have contributed tremendously to the Jewish community in Ireland.”

Off the record, responses are even harsher, highlighting the strategic shortsightedness of the decision. As one former senior Israeli government official pointedly notes, “Embassies are not a reward for good behavior. They’re outposts for promoting your affairs in countries with which one (still) has diplomatic relations. Closing up shop concedes the field to those who have your worst interests at heart.”

In Sa’ar’s statement, he suggested the opposite logic, that “Israel will invest its resources in promoting bilateral relations with the countries of the world according to priorities that are also derived from the attitude of the various countries toward it.” 

A career Israeli diplomat and ambassador (still serving the ministry) counters this view: “Personally, I think Sa’ar has made a big mistake. It will be very difficult and expensive to reopen embassy. Ireland has always been hellishly difficult and only recognized Israel in the 1970s and only agreed to open embassies in 1996. We should send a strong ambassador and deal with the situation. Instead, we do the opposite. I don’t think this government understands the purpose of diplomacy.”

The business impact is equally concerning. Ofir Angel, chairman of the Israel-Ireland Chamber of Commerce, noted in Globes that “Hundreds of Israelis have relocated to Ireland” in recent years, as part of Israeli tech companies expanding to Ireland. While acknowledging the currently soured atmosphere, he warns, “From a business perspective, it’s a shame, because there are people at the embassy in Dublin who have been very helpful to Israeli companies entering the Irish market in recent years. These connections will disappear.” Wix alone has several hundred employees and several dozen other Israeli companies already have offices there.

Oxymoronic decision

The nature of Israel’s response to ICJ supporters raises troubling questions about our diplomatic strategy and decision-making. While closing our Dublin mission, we maintain embassies in South Africa, which initiated the ICJ case, and in other supporting countries such as Spain and Mexico. This inconsistency undermines any message we might hope to send through the closure of the Irish embassy.

As former ambassador Dr. Reda Mansour notes, “Israel invests less than half a percent of the state budget in the Foreign Ministry... There are no free lunches, friends, and for profit you need to work hard.” 

This underinvestment in diplomacy reflects a broader strategic blindness: The Palestinian Authority (PA) now maintains broadly as many diplomatic missions worldwide as Israel, effectively outmanoeuvring us in the international arena despite far fewer resources. 

Israel’s Foreign Ministry has suffered real and nominal cuts in budget, stretching itself thinly across the globe. Functions and responsibilities have been divided up across other ministries, diluting its authority to speak for Israel abroad. With three different ministers since the October 7 attacks and war, one can only conclude that what ought to be seen as a strategic arm of our national security is just a political asset to be passed around. This, on the back of a long-term trust deficit that has deepened between Israel’s diplomatic corps and the prime minister. 

The Korea case provides a stark warning. The 14-year diplomatic vacuum that followed Dayan’s decision served neither country’s interests. Today, South Korea is a vital economic and technological partner for Israel, a relationship that might have developed far earlier had we maintained our diplomatic presence.

As Dr. Mansour argues, “Closing an embassy in a European Union country is very serious. The meaning is not that you’re punishing them but that you’re boycotting yourself. The Zionist vision was always to be part of the family of nations and as known, you don’t leave family over every small fight.” When we abandon diplomatic posts – whether in Seoul in 1978 or Dublin in 2024 – we sacrifice long-term influence for short-term gestures.

The human cost is immediate, but the strategic cost may be even greater. 

In an era when Israel faces unprecedented diplomatic challenges, we cannot afford to voluntarily reduce our diplomatic presence, especially in an EU and OECD member state. Diplomatic history teaches us that engagement, even in hostile environments, serves Israel’s interests better than withdrawal. The eternal people indeed should not fear a long road, but that road requires maintaining our diplomatic presence, not abandoning it. 

Sa’ar and the current government would rather have the immediate rush of populist applause at home than put in the hard work to take the diplomatic fight to our partners abroad. 

The writer, a founding partner of Goldrock Capital, is the founder of The Institute for Jewish and Zionist Research. He is a former chairman of Gesher, World Bnei Akiva, and the Coalition for Haredi Employment.