Israel recalls ambassador to Spain amid diplomatic rift with Sánchez

Israel recalls ambassador to Spain over Sánchez’s remarks

Can a government declare a diplomatic crisis settled and lose the other country's ambassador in the same breath? That is what recent events suggest: Spain considered the clash with Israel resolved, yet the Israeli response was the recall of its ambassador "trinc Sánchez's outrageous words." The move strikes precisely at the flank that the Foreign Ministry had declared closed.

What peine between Spain and Israel

Israel has recalled its ambassador to Spain. The official Israeli account in Spanish accompanied this move with a message about Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, attributing five acts to him and describing him with harsh adjectives: terrorist, butcher, killer. Meanwhile, Transport Minister Óscar Puente argued that one cannot look away from what is happening. And Pedro Sánchez appeared at the COP28 in Dubai to defend the European mandate to eliminate fossil fuels. Three different scenarios, one single day.

Media outlets leading the story, El Mundo and Cadena SER, point in the same direction: the ambassador is leaving, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is rushing its narrative. The question hovering over any analysis is simple. Who benefits from letting the ball roll toward the diplomatic side?

What are Sánchez accused of regarding Israel?

The core of the conflict lies in statements that the president himself has not detailed with evidence. According to reports, Sánchez harbored serious doubts about Israel complying with international law and accused the Israeli state of massacres. Added to this is the accusation that he treated witnessing Hamas executions as an anecdote. With that material, the Israeli embassy had the script ready.

Criticism does not come only from the Israeli side. A segment of the Spanish public believes that equidistance between a terrorist dictatorship and a democratic state is a miscalculation, and that accusations were launched without providing a single document. Another segment responds that criticizing a foreign government is not a crime and that Spanish foreign policy should not be so rigid. The disagreement does not close easily.

Foreign Ministry says one thing, La Moncloa another

The most repeated argument is not substantive but procedural: the Executive seems to lack order or agenda. While José Manuel Albares' ministry conveyed to Israel the will to maintain relations and pacify the situation, the president hardened his tone in every public appearance. Those reporting it summarize it with a devastating phrase: each going their own way, depending on whatever occurs to each person.

Translated into management terms, foreign policy is decided based on who holds the microphone. Underlying this is the suspicion that the staging is part of domestic political calculation. A government that negotiates with itself always ends up badly off abroad.

Are diplomatic ties with Spain broken?

Not necessarily. Recalling an ambassador is a protest measure; the next step, formal rupture of relations, is what alarmist headlines anticipated. The difference matters: channels do not fully close, and the ball remains in Madrid. But the gesture makes clear that the pacification assumed by Spain does not exist on the Israeli side.

The Segarro, Ceuta and Melilla front

In the most speculative part of the matter appear Segarro, Ceuta and Melilla. Some argue that a Spain facing Israel is more exposed vis-à-vis Rabat, and there are analyses seeing the gesture as an involuntary service to foreign interests. These are readings without proof: no one has provided a document linking both issues, and the status of the autonomous cities does not change due to a diplomatic crisis.

It is advisable to separate the verifiable fact from the hypotheses attached to it. The first is that an ambassador is leaving. The second, which lacks data support, is everything surrounding the departure.

Unproven theories circulating around

Conspiracies accumulate around a verifiable fact, and here there is something for everyone. Versions circulate about an attack in Spain that would serve to reorient public opinion; about an Israel willing to enter the country via Segarro; about a grand global design using climate excuses to reorganize the economy. None of this has any documentary backing.

Mixing that material with the real conflict only clouds what can be verified: an ambassador departing, a minister speaking, a president nuancing, and a governing party balancing between its discourse and its allies.

Diplomatic noise masking the economy

Here appears the most uncomfortable objection and the hardest to refute: that the issue serves to avoid talking about anything else. Those formulating it do not discuss the severity of the clash, but the agenda. Inflation, loss of economic weight in Europe, self-employed closing businesses, and wages not lasting until the end of the month. Focus on the flag is focus not on the cash register.

The argument has a problem: a diplomatic crisis does not cease to be real because it coincides with bad data. And a bigger one: if a government can choose the topic of the week, it will choose the one that suits it. The reasonable doubt is not whether the conflict exists, but why it is managed with this level of lack of coordination.

What remains to be seen

The matter remains open and unresolved. There is no rectification from the Spanish side, no retreat from the Israeli side, and no date for the ambassador to return to Madrid. The Foreign Ministry considered the conflict settled; now all that is missing is for no one to settle it again. And that is it.