Spain’s Border Crisis; Its Hypocrisy on Israel

This week, Spain faced a mass breach of its own border. Its response revealed exactly what the Spanish government believes about sovereignty when Spanish territory is at risk.

Beginning on July 30, tens of thousands of people crossed from Morocco into Ceuta, Spain’s small territory on the North African coast. Spain’s Interior Ministry estimated about 50,000 crossings, while Ceuta’s president placed the number closer to 60,000. The movement overwhelmed a city of roughly 85,000 residents. As of July 31, authorities had reported at least 57 deaths, including people who drowned or were crushed near the Tarajal breakwater. The figures remain provisional.

Spain deployed police and military forces, reinforced the border, and coordinated with Morocco to restore control. Many migrants returned voluntarily after entering Ceuta. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez traveled to the territory, described the crossing as a violation of Spain’s territorial integrity, and promised to use the resources necessary to protect the enclave.

Spain had a legitimate responsibility to respond. A government must control its borders, protect the people living inside them, and prevent a chaotic situation from causing further deaths. The deployment of security forces was a reasonable exercise of state authority. The conduct of those forces should still be examined under Spanish and European law.

Spain granted itself an immediate presumption of defensive legitimacy. Its leaders expected the world to understand that soldiers at the border served a protective purpose. The deaths in Ceuta didn’t automatically turn Spanish border enforcement into an attempt to destroy Moroccans. Spain expected its actions to be judged according to the threat, the purpose of the response, the methods used, and the decisions made under pressure.

Israel has received no comparable presumption from Sánchez.

In September 2025, the Spanish prime minister announced measures intended, in his words, to stop genocide in Gaza. His government strengthened its arms embargo on Israel, restricted ships carrying fuel for the Israeli military, limited the use of Spanish airspace by aircraft transporting defense material, and barred entry to people it accused of involvement in genocide, human rights violations, or war crimes.

Sánchez described Israel’s military campaign as the extermination of a defenseless people. His government continues to support international proceedings against Israel while presenting the central accusation as an established fact.

The International Court of Justice has never ruled that Israel committed genocide, yet Sánchez speaks as though a verdict already exists. The fact that Israel must defend its basic right to protect its citizens against a genocide accusation is itself absurd. Israel entered this war after Hamas-led terrorists crossed its border, massacred civilians, abducted 251 people, and openly promised further attacks. Spain answered an unarmed mass crossing by deploying security forces and defending its territorial integrity. It then condemned Israel for using military force against an organized enemy committed to its destruction. Spain grants itself an immediate presumption of defensive legitimacy while treating Israel’s response to a far greater threat as evidence of genocide. That is a political double standard directed at Israel.

Ceuta makes Spain’s certainty harder to defend.

The people entering Ceuta were primarily civilians trying to reach European territory. They included young men, women, and children. Their arrival placed enormous pressure on the city, its public services, and its residents. Spain treated the breach as a serious threat to public order and territorial control, even though the people crossing had no organized military objective.

Israel faced an armed assault on October 7, 2023. Hamas and other armed groups broke through the border, entered Israeli communities, murdered civilians, burned homes, attacked a music festival, and murdered over 1200 people.  The attackers entered Israel to kill and capture the people living behind that border.

Spain deployed state power against a largely civilian movement because the scale of the crossing overwhelmed its territory. Israel deployed military power after armed organizations carried out a planned massacre and continued holding hostages. The threat against Israel was far greater, more deliberate, and openly violent.

Spain still gave its own response the benefit of context. Its treatment of Israel begins with a presumption of criminal intent.

That is the double standard.

Spain officially acknowledges Israel’s right to security and has condemned the October 7 attack. Those statements carry little weight when its government treats Israel’s exercise of that right as proof of genocide before the court has ruled. Spain claims defensive legitimacy for itself at the moment of danger and grants Israel only an abstract right that becomes unacceptable once Israel uses force.

A serious evaluation of Israel’s conduct must examine specific actions. Governments can question whether a strike served a legitimate military objective, whether civilian harm could have been reduced, whether sufficient precautions were taken, and whether humanitarian obligations were met. Israel remains responsible for its decisions throughout the war.

Those questions concern the conduct of a military campaign. They don’t erase the cause of the war or Israel’s responsibility to prevent another attack.

As a self-defense instructor, I teach that reasonable force requires capability, judgment, and control. The legitimacy of force depends on its protective purpose, its timing, and the decisions made while it is being used. The same framework gives us a disciplined way to evaluate state action. A government’s use of force deserves scrutiny. Its defensive purpose deserves an honest examination as well.

Israel must also assess when military force remains necessary and when the situation has changed. In self-defense, the engagement ends once the threat is neutralized and escape becomes possible. Warfare involves different legal rules and strategic realities, yet the responsibility to reassess force remains. Precision, restraint, and accountability are part of legitimate defense.

Spain can apply these principles to Israel. It can challenge operations, demand evidence, and support investigations. Credible criticism begins with one consistent standard.

Ceuta shows that Spain understands how rapidly border control can collapse. A few successful crossings can encourage thousands more. Authorities must restore a credible barrier before the movement grows beyond their ability to manage it. Spain acted quickly because delay would have increased the danger for migrants, residents, and security forces.

Israel lives with a more severe version of that calculation. Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Iran study Israel’s willingness and ability to respond. Each attack tests the country’s defenses and influences the planning of the next one. Israel’s government has a duty to protect its citizens and restore deterrence after a catastrophic failure.

Spain accepted that duty for itself as soon as Ceuta’s border was breached. Its leaders deployed force, defended territorial integrity, and expected the world to recognize the legitimacy of their purpose. When Israel responded to armed men who murdered families and kidnapped civilians, Sánchez declared the campaign genocidal before any court reached that judgment.

Spain may judge how Israel fights. Credibility requires Spain to begin where it began in Ceuta, with an honest recognition that a state whose border has been violently breached has the right and responsibility to defend its people.

A moral standard must survive a change of countries. Spain’s standard changes as soon as Israel enters the picture.

Do something amazing,
Tsahi Shemesh