Never before have this island's people been joined in mourning as during the past seven days. No one is untouched by the emotions triggered by the catastrophe.
Every one of the 28 deaths has had its special aspect of tragedy. As the last of the funerals took place, we were reminded of the 70 casualties still in hospital, many with little prospect of every being able to resume a normal life.
The urgency of pre-empting, as far as possible, any repetition of this massacre has meant that politicians could not await the funerals before addressing the matter. The Government has acted with commendable speed in preparing and deciding on a range of new measures to be enacted by the Oireachtas in 10 days.
On the British side, Dr Mo Mowlam was reported on television to have adopted what appeared to be a somewhat defensive stance, describing the new Irish measures as an updating of this State's anti-terrorist legislation to British standards.
This surprising and inaccurate assessment may, of course, have been taken out of context, as can sometimes happen with brief radio and TV reports.
For in Thursday's Irish Times Dr Mowlam was reported as saying she was looking at legislative changes to strengthen the extensive powers already available in the United Kingdom along lines similar to those announced here, so as to make it easier to prove membership of an illegal organisation.
And on Thursday evening Mr Tony Blair confirmed the intention to adopt measures similar to ours, albeit with no commitment as to the time-scale of this legislative action.
But neither referred to re-enacting the power to introduce internment, to which Mo Mowlam has in the past expressed her personal opposition. She recently secured its repeal. Should she maintain this position, and be supported in this stance by the Prime Minister, it would not then be practicable for Dublin to use its power to intern should any key elements of the new legislation now being drafted here be found unconstitutional.
We must hope this will not arise. One proposal reported to have been brought to Government that might not have stood up to scrutiny by the courts, and which was not included in the proposed legislation, was for a personal association with a proven member of an illegal organisation to be capable of being used to corroborate the opinion of a senior police officer.
But the measures the Government actually approved seem more robust, and appear to me to stand a good chance of withstanding any legal challenge.
If I am right, then one particularly useful provision could be that which will permit the seizure of property, including land, used to store weapons or to make bombs. Given the attachment to land-ownership in rural Ireland (an attachment that has kept its price far above the level at which it can yield a viable financial return) this could prove highly effective.
And if perchance this were to be accompanied in due course by an amnesty period for land-owners who, before a certain deadline, volunteered information about arms dumps on their property, the effect could conceivably be to greatly speed the decommissioning process.
A life sentence for directing an illegal organisation will also be a powerful deterrent, as might a 10-year sentence for training persons in the use of firearms or explosives. And if those at present engaged in these activities in the so-called `Real IRA' were to be successfully prosecuted, these heavy sentences might deter others from taking their places.
Finally, the withdrawal of the right to silence and the opening up of the possibility of allowing inferences to be drawn from such silence in certain instances could prove very effective, if it stands up to constitutional scrutiny.
The announcement by the `Real IRA' that it was suspending its campaign and initiating internal discussions on long-term strategy has received an understandably hostile reaction from the Taoiseach and many others. And there is, of course, no way of knowing at this stage whether this is merely a tactical move designed to mislead, or a genuine precursor of a permanent cessation of violence by this group.
But the fact that this move has been reported to have caused dissension in the ranks of the organisation suggests that, one way or the other, it would be unwise to count on this being the end of the road for terrorism in Ireland. Might there even be a further split in the ranks of this `Real IRA'?
In any event, the Government will, not be deterred by any of this from proceeding with its legislation, the enactment of which will certainly maximise the chances of an eventual peaceful outcome.
We can see that such a sustained peace is now at least possible; albeit one for which an appallingly high price has had to be paid by Omagh's victims. And even if some further violence is attempted, these new measures would stand a good chance of suppressing it.
The political implications of the week's tragic events remain difficult to assess. Among the constitutional pro-agreement parties North and South the effect has certainly been to intensify their commitment to the institution-building process initiated and provided for through the Belfast Agreement.
The position within Sinn Fein/IRA is harder to assess.
The Omagh explosion certainly opened a deep gulf between its leadership and their former colleagues in the `Real IRA'. And the condemnation of this bomb by Sinn Fein was certainly a milestone, although (like Fintan O'Toole in this newspaper yesterday) on hearing Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams condemning the bomb and deploring the loss of life, I could not but remember the IRA's role in Bloody Friday in Belfast two decades ago, at Enniskillen, the Shankill Road and countless other tragic places in Northern Ireland and Britain.
But the key question is whether Omagh has brought any nearer the moment when the decommissioning process will start. That it will start at some point seems clear from statements by several leading figures including the IRA leader in the Maze Prison. But when?
We do not know just what is holding up the start of this process. Is it opposition from within the "Army Council", or hardline grassroots attitudes or, perhaps, a reluctance by the Sinn Fein leadership to let the UUP off the decommissioning hook upon which republicans see it as having impaled itself in relation to the establishment of the executive authority?
If it is internal pressures that have hitherto constrained Adams and McGuinness to delay the start of this process, then surely there could never be a better moment for them to force the pace and exercise their leadership. And if the delay has been a ploy on their part to put the UUP on the spot then, as Paul Bew pointed out in this newspaper yesterday, persistence with this could risk bringing down the agreement, after Sinn Fein has invested so much effort in initiating and negotiating it. Either way, a rethink of the hold-up on the start of decommissioning is needed.
There must be concern lest a failure to quickly resolve this potential deadlock over the establishment of the executive authority might lead to both Sinn Fein and the UUP becoming so locked into exclusive positions on this issue as to make a resolution of a stand-off difficult.
Perhaps behind-the-scenes moves may be under way to resolve this critical outstanding issue. But, if so, we are unlikely to hear about them unless and until they succeed.