Against such an unchanging backdrop of apocalyptic scenes, it’s hard not to agree with Taoiseach Simon Harris’s assessment that Israel’s closure of its Dublin embassy is anything other than a “distraction”.
Far easier to spend time arguing over semantics, than to justify a cycle of civilian carnage that even the Israeli army has questioned, on the grounds that its military goals have been achieved in Gaza.
Ireland, like every other state, roundly condemns attacks on Israel. The taking of hostages, and the attacks by Hamas, were appalling acts.
But we have a voice, and therefore we have a responsibility not to be silenced when people are being killed on such an unprecedented scale, and all appeals for a ceasefire are dismissed. Figures show that 45,028 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, and 106,900 injured, since October 7 last year.
A growing incitement and hatred towards anything Israeli
So taking all of the above into consideration, it was not surprising to hear Mr Harris say: “It is deeply regrettable that it (Israel) decided to shut its embassy. I don’t in any way minimise that decision, but it’s nothing in comparison to what’s happening in the Middle East, absolutely nothing.”
By contrast, comments from Israeli ambassador to Ireland, Dana Erlich, claiming the embassy had seen “a growing incitement and hatred towards anything Israeli” seem ill-advised.
And her statement that “this is not criticism, but is just pure hatred and obsession that is now also directed to Israelis and the Jewish community” was both inflammatory and reckless.
Israel is at the centre of unprecedented international censure for its indiscriminate attacks.
Its complete resistance to a ceasefire while people are in dire need of emergency supplies to stave off famine is also a cause of global concern.
Instead of addressing these genuine humanitarian worries, Israel is deflecting attention from grave allegations of war crimes. It has decided to single out Ireland for daring to question the spiralling death toll.
Ms Erlich also attacked Ireland’s decision to intervene in South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. This, she said, is “an abuse of the international multilateral system by South Africa”.
But as Tánaiste Micheál Martin rightly said, this country’s position towards Israel has not been motivated by anything other than respect for international humanitarian law and human rights.
To claim that bringing allegations of crimes to the highest bar of international justice was “a hostile act” shows how insular Israel has become.
Instead of pointing fingers, it would far better serve the Israeli government – and its ambassadors – to concentrate all their energies on ending the war.