Vox Leader Backs Maccabi Fans Who Disrupted DANA Moment of Silence

Abascal backs ultras who disrupted DANA moment of silence

Vox leader Santiago Abascal has defended Maccabi Tel Aviv ultras who caused disturbances and boycotted the moment of silence for DANA flood victims in Valencia during an Europa League match against Ajax in Amsterdam. On social media, Abascal stated: "Full support to @geertwilderspvv in his demand to deport all perpetrators of the pogrom against Maccabi Tel Aviv fans in Amsterdam. Sarracinism is an existential threat to the West." The reaction was immediate, reopening debate on who truly benefits from Spain's far-right rhetoric.

What peine in Amsterdam and why Abascal spoke out

The incident occurred after the match at Johan Cruyff Arena. Maccabi Tel Aviv ultras, who had already provoked disturbances and chanted anti-Palestinian slogans, disrupted the moment of silence honoring Valencia flood victims. According to videos circulated online, Maccabi fans broke the silence with chants. One participant noted that during the silence, a section of the stands sang "Palestine will be Free" and "from the river to the sea," prompting Israeli responses. Some participants claimed the event was orchestrated to provoke Israelis; others argued the Israeli response was what ruined the tribute.

Abascal did not condemn this disruption. Instead, he backed Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders, who described the events as a "hunt for Jews" and demanded strict measures against pro-Palestinian groups involved in post-match clashes. Spain's Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned attacks on Maccabi fans and rejected antisemitism "anywhere and under any circumstances," a move some interpret as avoiding snubbing Israel while the government maintains its pro-Palestinian stance.

Debate: Is Vox dissent or part of the system?

Abascal's stance prompted critical voters to question what Vox represents. One view holds that a conservative, pro-American, pro-Israel party is deeply systemic in the West, and its "dissent" role is mere marketing. Others argue Vox is "controlled dissent like Podemos," claiming the left-right axis no longer explains anything: "Spain is a corrupt traficante-state through and through, starting with the crown and ending with the last councilor in Villaconejos de Arriba."

In this vein, some recall that Vox only pays lip service to opposing Agenda 2030. A common argument is that Abascal serves interests foreign to Spain: "VOX = ISRAEL," summarizes one message. Another adds: "The great Spanish patriot only serves Zion's interests." This accusation isn't new, but the moment of silence episode gave it concrete form: the ultras he defends mocked Valencia's dead.

Clash of victims: Valencia, Amsterdam, and double standards

The most uncomfortable aspect is that Abascal defends those who disrespected Spanish victims. "If those Maccabi Jews insult our dead's memory, I curse all theirs, you sons of bitches," writes a participant. This crude phrase captures indignation transcending ideologies: the moment of silence was for DANA victims, not imported conflicts. Yet, the conversation shifted to the Middle East.

Some try to separate issues: "Maccabi fans are idiots and the team must be sanctioned. Pro-Palestinians are terrorists who should be jailed." Others believe the episode shows Vox "doesn't care about Valencia's dead" and only uses tragedy when convenient. Double-standard debates mix with suspicions that Sánchez's government plays similar cards: "Sánchez is pro-Hamas," some claim, attempting to explain the Israeli response as revenge for Spain's stance after October attacks.

What does Vox gain from this backing?

Electoral calculations remain uncertain. Vox consolidates its pro-Israel profile, aligning with European far-right where Wilders is a reference. However, it bears the cost of defending ultras who disrupted a tribute to Spanish victims, potentially alienating patriotic voters who prioritize respect for the dead over geopolitics. The key question is whether these voters reward ideological consistency or punish lack of empathy for their own countrymen.

The issue's evolution depends on whether it remains a stadium anecdote or becomes a symbol. So far, it has made some Vox voters wary of the party's discourse on "Spain's enemies." Others reaffirm the problem isn't Vox, but a system offering the same faces each election cycle. With these dynamics, the debate likely fades soon, only to reignite at the next match antiestéticaturing Israeli flags. Given recent events, betting against another incident seems unwise.