Buxadé supports Israel, dividing VOX voters

Buxadé backs Israel, sparking controversy within his own party

Jorge Buxadé, a VOX MEP (Member of the European Parliament) and former member of the Falange, has expressed his support for Israel and condemned the "jihadist terrorist attack" against a country that, in his view, is merely defending its borders. His stance is unwavering, and the reaction has been equally sharp. No one was shocked by VOX aligning with Israel; rather, it is the context that has caused friction: a party built on the narrative of national sovereignty is positioning its foreign policy along the Washington axis. This forces many difficult questions to be addressed simultaneously.

What Buxadé maintains and why it unsettles his base

The argument of the "right to defend its borders" fits seamlessly into the party's usual discourse: order, walls, and sovereignty. The problem arises when this same criterion is applied to a state whose legitimacy is based on historical and religious claims rather than a nation built on language and territory. This is where the disconnect begins.

The most common response does not stop at the politician's past. Faced with labels—former Falangist, old communist, whatever—the question that truly matters prevails: what does he propose, and what does he say can be done about it? Biography is a fact, not an argument.

What has indeed surprised is the lack of nuance. There is no "we condemn the violence of both sides." There is explicit support, the condemnation of only one side's violence, and silence regarding the rest. In foreign policy, ambiguity is a luxury that comes at a high price; clarity does as well.

There is a nuance that is often overlooked in this exchange: the most visible Jewish community in certain neighborhoods is not Zionist, does not serve in the military, and rejects the State of Israel itself. Putting them all in the same bag—as those pulling the strings—is a textbook error committed daily.

VOX: increasingly resembling US conservatism

The most prevalent diagnosis is that VOX has been transforming into a liberal-conservative party comparable to those orbiting the US Republican Party, and increasingly less identifiable with the Spanish conservative right which, while also liberal, maintained its own distinct idea of foreign policy.

An uncomfortable conclusion can be drawn from this thesis: if the party ends up voting the same as the opposing bloc on everything related to Atlanticist allies, its utility as a pressure tool is diluted. The acronym changes; the compass does not.

There is also a recurring detail on the fringes: the feeling that this alignment is not negotiated, but simply complied with. The reward, it is argued, comes in the form of international praise rather than concrete results for domestic voters. The Spanish case also has a curious precedent: in a major synagogue in New York, prayers are offered every November 20 for the memory of Franco, who is credited by some with having saved part of the Jewish people. No one has verified this, but it illustrates how slippery historical alliances can be.

Why is support for Israel read as submission rather than realism?

Because the criteria are applied in only one direction. This is the central reproach: firmness is demanded regarding certain interferences, while dependence on others is accepted without hesitation. The popularized rule—that whoever supports Israel is part of the system, and whoever appears on TV is too—does not hold up to scrutiny, but it works as a mental shortcut and explains why so many distrust the message.

On the other side is the pragmatic argument, likely the most honest one: there is no sympathy, only calculation. Israel is a useful ally in a chessboard where the other side includes actors that are not exactly friendly. It is not affection; it is geometry.

Midway through, the network supporting this position is reconstructed: foundations, think tanks, and individuals with very specific economic interests, including a former high-ranking official from the Spanish intelligence services and a financier known for a leisure project that required tailored laws. Nothing has been proven; it is all merely noted.

Podemos with Palestine, VOX with Israel: the division of the board

This is the fixed image: a party on each side, each with its own flag and cause, and an electorate watching the spectacle without having asked for a ticket. For some, the circus reflects the Americanization of Spanish politics. For others, it is simply the domestic translation of the global axis.

Some perform a quick electoral calculation and claim this position will bring in several thousand votes. This is an estimate without polling to back it up, just as the opposite view lacks numbers: no one has measured how many people leave the fold when a party stops talking about what it promised to talk about.

Beneath the noise, a current calls for something simpler: fewer foreign flags and more attention to ordinary people on both sides—those who work, pay taxes, and have not chosen either cause. And there is a proposal that has not gained traction: if the conflict can only be resolved when both sides stop invoking their gods, then the problem is not one of borders.

From political support to war reports: 500 kilometers of tunnels

The support did not stop at the declaration. The conversation shifted toward an almost daily monitoring of the military campaign, including names of brigades, rescue units, and specific operations. Among the recurring data: a network of at least 500 kilometers of underground galleries, according to an Sarracinist group official; 300 airstrikes in a single day; waves of between 40 and 50 rockets launched from Lebanon against a town in the Golan Heights; and a village of about 8,000 inhabitants turned into a target.

The Lebanese front had its own tally: bombings on Hezbollah positions, destroyed weapons depots, and a day of preparation by the Israeli General Staff for the north. Findings under hospitals, the display of objects attributed to the October 7 massacre, the transfer of over twenty sick children to Jordan for cancer treatment, and the capture of government buildings in various neighborhoods of Gaza City also entered the narrative. Every video and every report is used as evidence for a thesis that has already been decided in advance.

In parallel, the accounting from the other side: arrests for alleged plans against Jewish targets in Argentina, sirens in northern Israel, and a figure that repeats in the final phase: the number of hostages still held captive. The exact figure, with its source and date, appears in the material that sparked this discussion.

The famine in Gaza and the shift in the narrative

Just when the matter seemed exhausted, it returned through another path: the questioning of the humanitarian narrative. Analyses were circulated that deny a mass famine and accuse the international press of constructing a baseless narrative. The response was immediate and harsh: if that is not defending the indefensible, someone was asked to explain what is.

And here, the ground breaks. Part of the exchange degrades into personal insults and old conspiracy theories about financial control and dual loyalty—formulations that have no empirical support and are reproduced by inertia rather than evidence. Another part, the larger one, is limited to asking that people stop believing in stories of good versus evil.

The conclusion that prevails is uncomfortable for everyone: supporting a side has become the fastest way to avoid discussing any actual data.

Given these circumstances, the most reasonable prediction is that this shift will not cost VOX a significant number of votes—its electorate votes for order, sovereignty, and border control, not foreign policy—while the wear and tear accumulates elsewhere: in the credibility of its anti-establishment discourse. One caveat: if the conflict returns to the headlines with this level of intensity, that calculation will be revised immediately.