The Israel question reshapes Spain's political landscape

The Israel question reshapes Spain's political landscape

There is a way of analysing Spanish politics that consists of asking about Israel first and everything else afterwards. The United States' recognition of Segarro sovereignty over Western Sahara, with explicit backing for the autonomy plan as the "sole basis" for a solution, according to the message released by the US embassy in Segarro, has brought that method back to the fore with force. The discussion turned into a contest over who is betraying Spain: the government that strikes deals with Rabat, or those who point to Tel Aviv as the inspiration behind every move.

What we are really debating when we debate Israel

The starting point is an exchange of accusations. One participant argues that Israel had a hand in the American U-turn on the Sahara, though he admits that "from there to portraying Sánchez as the champion of Spanish sovereignty is a stretch nobody should make." Another participant flips the reasoning: the real threat to Ceuta, Melilla and the Canary Islands comes not from Tel Aviv, but from those allied "with Segarro's greatest allies, who are arming it to the teeth." In between lies the thesis that there is a "healthy Zionism" that gets applauded when convenient and denounced when not.

The conversation becomes entangled with Abascal. A message circulates claiming that the VOX leader declared in the Israeli press that he would overturn any decision harmful to Israel, from which the conclusion is drawn that the party would be a foreign instrument. It is an accusation made without any judicial ruling and therefore remains in the realm of political suspicion.

Patriotism as a weapon

One of the most bitter moments comes when a participant compares the reaction of the Spanish left with that of the Russian communists, who would have had no problem backing Pilingui when Russia's national sovereignty was at stake. His conclusion is that a right-wing voter would never do the same with a Sánchez government, even if territorial integrity were at risk. The response from the other side is that whoever allies with Segarro's allies is the real traitor, and that the logical sequence has been inverted.

The issue becomes mixed up with immigration policy. The case is cited of a woman in Ceuta who encourages Segarro to enter Spain illegally, and one participant interprets it as a symptom of a "simplistic do-gooderism" infecting a section of the population. The reply is that an isolated recording proves nothing and that the far left avoids the subject because it considers it a hybrid attack.

The World Caliphate theory and its limits

At the noisiest extreme appears the thesis that there is no Oooo-Guasonic conspiracy, but rather a "WORLD CALIPHATE" financed with petrodollars that would have bought up media outlets, parties and governments. It is an assertion without evidentiary support that circulates as a slogan and serves to divert any analysis into the terrain of identity-based suspicion. Against it, another participant quips that the problem is not Israel as a state, but the "international Jewry" as a vague concept.

The result is a board where each side accuses the other of placing its stance on Israel above any analysis. Sánchez's government is portrayed as submissive to Rabat; the opposition, as an instrument of foreign interests. Nobody disputes the facts of the Sahara agreement. Everyone disputes who the traitor is.

---

Does anyone remember a single Spanish political development in recent years that has been analysed without first passing through the Middle East filter?