分类： politics

A fresh sovereignty row over the North African enclave of Ceuta has sent diplomatic tensions between Morocco and Spain soaring, after a senior Moroccan cabinet minister publicly questioned Madrid’s rule over the territory during an official state ceremony.

Ahmed Toufiq, Morocco’s Minister of Habous and Islamic Affairs, made the contested remarks at an event marking the birth of the Prophet Muhammad, held at Rabat’s Royal Palace and hosted by King Mohammed VI. During his speech highlighting centuries of Islamic scholarly work on the life and teachings of the Prophet, Toufiq named three influential texts written by Islamic intellectuals hailing from Ceuta: Al-Shifa by Qadi Iyad, Al-Durr al-Manzum by Al-Azafi, and the well-known collection of prayers Dala’il al-Khayrat by Imam Al-Jazuli.

Toufiq went on to frame Dala’il al-Khayrat as a historic symbol of Moroccan collective mobilization to free what he called “occupied cities” along Morocco’s Atlantic coast during the early modern era. The reference was a clear nod to 15th and 16th century Moroccan resistance movements that pushed back against Portuguese and Spanish territorial expansion along both the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts of the region.

The comments sparked immediate outrage in Spain, which is already grappling with persistent diplomatic friction and migration pressures linked to a massive border crisis at Ceuta that unfolded in late July. During that crisis, more than 72,000 people crossed from Morocco into Ceuta, including roughly 7,000 unaccompanied minors, according to official Spanish data. Viral footage captured thousands of migrants swimming around the border barrier to reach the enclave, many relying on basic flotation devices to make the dangerous crossing. While most migrants returned to Morocco within hours, several thousand remained in Ceuta, overwhelming local reception facilities. Madrid ultimately rolled out an emergency plan to relocate 500 of the most vulnerable minors to the Spanish mainland to ease overcrowding.

At least 141 people were killed during the July 30 crossing incident, an event that already drove a sharp wedge between the two neighboring countries. Many Spanish political figures have openly accused Moroccan authorities of deliberately enabling the mass migration surge to pressure Madrid over longstanding territorial disputes.

Toufiq’s sovereignty claim is not an isolated incident: he is the second senior Moroccan government official to publicly stake a claim to Ceuta and the neighboring adjacent enclave of Melilla in the months following the July crisis. Just one week prior, Moroccan Justice Minister Abdellatif Ouahbi publicly referenced Morocco’s “historical and geographical right” to both territories, and proposed establishing a bilateral commission to negotiate their “return to the homeland.”

Spanish officials have moved swiftly to reject the new claims. On Tuesday, Spanish Migration Minister Elma Saiz issued a firm rebuke of Toufiq’s comments during a public press briefing. “Ceuta and Melilla are Spanish,” she stated. “They are our southern borders, as well as the borders of Europe. There is nothing more to add.” Madrid has previously “categorically” rejected any challenge to its sovereignty over the two territories.

Ceuta and Melilla are both Spanish autonomous cities located entirely within Moroccan territory along the country’s northern Mediterranean coast. They host the only shared land border between the European Union and the African continent, making their status a critical point of both diplomatic and policy contention for the EU as well. The Moroccan government has never formally recognized Spanish sovereignty over either enclave, leaving the issue as one of the longest-running unresolved disputes in North African-European relations.

A controversial move by Israeli authorities to rename one of East Jerusalem’s most recognizable historical landmarks has drawn sharp condemnation from Palestinian leaders and analysts, who say the action is the latest step in a long-running campaign to erase Palestinian and Arab cultural identity from the occupied territory.

Located on the northern perimeter of Jerusalem’s walled Old City, Damascus Gate has for centuries stood as one of the most significant entry points to the historic urban core. Beyond its architectural and historical importance, it serves as a primary passage for Palestinian worshippers traveling to the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, and remains a central gathering space for Palestinian communities in the area.

Earlier this week, Israeli municipal workers removed long-standing public signage labeling the site Damascus Gate, replacing it with new signs in Arabic, English, and Hebrew that read “Ancient Gate”.

Abdullah Marouf, a researcher focused exclusively on Al-Aqsa Mosque and surrounding Jerusalem affairs, argues the renaming is part of a deliberate state strategy to Judaize Jerusalem by systematically replacing Arab and Islamic cultural symbols in public life with Jewish-centric alternatives. He noted that Palestinian communities have deep, daily ties to the area around Damascus Gate, and that Israeli officials have pushed to alter the site’s name for decades.

“This Hebrew name aims to strip the place of its ‘Damascus Gate’ designation, as it is one of the main and central gates of Jerusalem,” Marouf explained in an interview with Middle East Eye. He added that attempts to rename prominent landmarks across the Old City are not a new development: Israeli authorities previously renamed Solomon’s Cave, a site located between Damascus Gate and Herod’s Gate, to Zedekiah’s Cave in an earlier push to reorient the site’s historical identity. Marouf emphasized that all such naming changes are intended to reshape the fundamental character and cultural identity of Jerusalem, though he argued the campaign has ultimately been unsuccessful.

“Israel has proven its utter failure in achieving this goal, as the image, nature and Arabic language of Jerusalem are clear, and a sign in one of the city’s streets cannot change its reality,” he said.

The renaming of Damascus Gate is not an isolated incident, but part of a broader ongoing campaign targeting street names, public landmarks, and historic sites across East Jerusalem. In a formal statement released Wednesday, the Jerusalem Governorate condemned the move as part of a deliberate state policy to reshape the city’s cultural and urban landscape.

The governorate emphasized that the renaming is far more than a routine administrative adjustment: it is a targeted effort to cut future generations of Palestinians off from the city’s deep-rooted historical Arab heritage. “The names of Jerusalem’s gates, streets and landmarks represent an integral part of the city’s national, historical and cultural memory,” the statement read. “Replacing them with new names undermines Jerusalem’s identity and its Arab, Islamic and Christian heritage.”

Like Marouf, the governorate stressed that such cosmetic changes cannot erase the city’s long-established history or entrenched cultural memory.

The broader context of this move hinges on the international status of East Jerusalem, which Israel occupied in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War before formally annexing the territory and the Old City. No country or international body recognizes Israel’s sovereignty over East Jerusalem under international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs the conduct of occupying powers, explicitly prohibits permanent changes to the social, cultural, or political landscape of occupied territory unless such changes are required for urgent military or humanitarian purposes, which the renaming of a historic gate does not qualify as.

Diplomatic tensions between Israel and the United Kingdom have reached a new low, with Israeli authorities openly considering the expulsion of British representatives from the US-led International Gaza Support Center (IGSC), the multinational body tasked with monitoring the fragile ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas.

The potential retaliatory move comes in direct response to upcoming planned restrictions from British Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s administration targeting goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Multiple sources cited by the Financial Times confirm that Jerusalem is also weighing ejecting representatives from Italy and Germany from the IGSC, expanding a growing pattern of punitive diplomatic action against nations that challenge Israel’s settlement policies.

Established to oversee ceasefire compliance and coordinate humanitarian support for Gaza, the IGSC operates under the leadership of US military personnel, who collaborate closely with the Israel Defense Forces and delegations from more than 30 countries around the world. This is not the first time Israel has taken punitive action against participating states: earlier this week, Israeli officials expelled Dutch representatives from the center after the Netherlands implemented a national ban on settlement goods. Earlier in 2025, Spain was removed from the IGSC over what Jerusalem called Madrid’s “obsessive anti-Israel bias.”

Burnham, who took office as UK prime minister in July 2025 after succeeding Keir Starmer, signaled a sharp shift in British policy toward Israel even before assuming office. Shortly before his inauguration, Burnham issued a public apology for the previous Labour leadership’s early backing of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and its refusal to support an immediate ceasefire in 2023 and early 2024.

Earlier this month, independent outlet Middle East Eye reported that Burnham’s government is set to unveil a full package of new policies toward Israel in September, headlined by the long-teased ban on illegal settlement goods. According to reporting from MEE, British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband has been a key driving force behind the tougher measures, holding extensive consultations with British civil society groups to shape the new policy framework.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already made his administration’s fury at the UK clear in public remarks. In a recent interview, Netanyahu sparked widespread outrage by labeling Britain an “Islamic republic,” complaining that the favorable media coverage Israel received during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war no longer exists in British outlets. “Try to find that now in Britain, which you could call the Islamic republic of Britain,” Netanyahu said.

The British government swiftly rejected the remarks as “completely unacceptable.” Citing analysis from the Financial Times, British officials acknowledge that an expulsion from the IGSC would amount to deliberate diplomatic retaliation, but note that the prospect does not trigger major concern for the UK government.

Public opinion in Britain has shifted sharply against Israel in recent months, with polling data reflecting growing public support for punitive measures against Israeli settlement activity. A YouGov survey published this week found that 50 percent of British adults back a ban on trade with West Bank settlements, while only 16 percent oppose the policy. A June 2025 poll further underscored this shift: 55 percent of respondents opposed Israel’s military actions in Gaza, with just 15 percent expressing support. Among that 55 percent who oppose Israel’s actions, 82 percent said they believe Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza. The same survey also found that 65 percent of Britons want the UK government to enforce the International Criminal Court’s existing arrest warrant for Netanyahu should he visit British territory.

Already strained during the final months of Keir Starmer’s premiership, bilateral relations between Britain and Israel have collapsed to a new low under Burnham’s leadership, as shifting public pressure and a new policy direction in London bring the two countries into open diplomatic conflict over Gaza and Israeli settlement expansion.

Amid rising tensions between Turkey and Israel following a recent Israeli airstrike on a northern Syrian military base, Ankara has adopted a deliberate strategy of holding back any significant retaliation until after Israel’s October general election, multiple senior Turkish and regional officials have confirmed to Middle East Eye. The core reasoning behind this cautious approach is that Turkish leaders have concluded that any strong immediate response would play directly into the hands of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is running a struggling re-election campaign and seeking to rally domestic support by escalating regional tensions.

The targeted site, the Abu al-Duhur military airbase, sits roughly 70 kilometers from the Turkish border. While the strike is widely viewed as a deliberate provocation by Ankara, it did not catch Turkish officials off guard. Israel has justified the attack by claiming Turkey was preparing to deploy air defense systems at the base, a claim Ankara has flatly denied — a denial that has been corroborated by both Syrian and U.S. officials.

“Israel has hit other positions inside Syria before. This one is not particularly unprecedented,” one senior Turkish official explained to MEE. The official added that the Turkish government has already made its stance on Israeli military actions in Syria clear through multiple public communications, noting that Netanyahu is facing deep domestic pressure and is deliberately stoking conflict with Turkey to divert attention from his political woes. “And he is a madman, definitely, for trying that,” the official added.

Many insiders in Ankara expect the upcoming Israeli election will usher in a change in government, bringing to power what they frame as more pragmatic, reasonable political actors. Turkish officials point to open opposition among some Israeli politicians to Netanyahu’s deliberate escalation, including Yair Golan, a former Israeli general and leader of the left-wing Democrats party, who has pushed back against the prime minister’s confrontational approach.

Two factors make the recent strike particularly alarming for Turkish leadership, officials confirm. First, Israel failed to use the established deconfliction hotline between the two governments ahead of the strike, a departure from established protocol that Ankara views as unnecessarily reckless. Second, the strike represents a clear violation of a bilateral understanding reached between the two countries during talks held in Baku last year.

Under that 2025 agreement, mediated to reduce the risk of accidental confrontation between Turkish and Israeli forces operating in Syria, the two sides set the area north of the T4 airbase near Palmyra as a dividing line between their respective security zones of influence. The deal grew out of earlier tensions over the T4 base, where Turkey had planned to establish a drone outpost to conduct counter-Islamic State operations, a move that prompted Israel to bomb the facility before Turkish forces could deploy. Subsequent negotiations resulted in the dividing line agreement, which was crafted to accommodate Israel’s request for an open air corridor through Syria for potential strikes on Iran in the event of a future conflict.

Prior to last week’s strike, talks between the two sides had progressed relatively smoothly, with Israel continuing to oppose the deployment of Turkish air defense and radar systems in Syria but remaining broadly satisfied with the negotiated framework. The latest attack, however, signals that Israel has shifted course, choosing to forcibly oppose any Turkish-armed or Turkish-supported airbase in northern Syria — even in areas located just kilometers from the Turkish border, well within the zone Ankara was expected to control under the 2025 agreement.

Because Turkey has never moved to deploy forces to Abu al-Duhur, Turkish officials view the strike as an unprovoked breach of the previously agreed status quo. As analyst Dünya Başol noted on social media, while the Israeli government has claimed the strike was necessary to reverse a broken status quo, the attack actually upends the arrangement that Israel itself had agreed to in earlier negotiations.

Multiple Turkish officials have told MEE that Ankara no longer views the current Israeli government led by Netanyahu as a rational negotiating partner. At the same time, Turkish leaders have deliberately framed their own restrained response as proof that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is the pragmatic, level-headed actor in the confrontation, in contrast to what they cast as Netanyahu’s reckless political opportunism.

This deliberate display of calm was on public display in recent days: even after the strike and repeated insulting remarks from Netanyahu, Erdogan chose not to cut short his annual summer holiday in Marmaris. He was filmed joking with local politicians during his time away, and when he finally addressed the issue publicly on Tuesday, he avoided any direct mention of either Netanyahu or Israel. He argued that “murderous networks” seeking political gain from a failing election campaign did not deserve a direct response, while still reaffirming that Turkey has a clear regional strategy, will not abandon its regional partners, and seeks only to advance lasting peace with no hidden agenda.

Beyond avoiding boosting Netanyahu’s election prospects, there is a second key strategic reason for Turkey’s cautious approach: the shifting dynamic between Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump. Over the past year, relations between the two leaders have deteriorated significantly, as Netanyahu’s maximalist demands on policy toward Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza have repeatedly put Trump at odds with regional realities and key U.S. Arab allies.

Turkey has intentionally aligned its approach with Washington’s current posture, a strategy that has been boosted by the close relationship Ankara has built with U.S. Special Envoy Thomas Barrack. The warm existing rapport between Erdogan and Trump has also paved the way for two recent major diplomatic wins for Turkey that cut directly against Israeli objectives in Syria.

First, after 47 years of listing Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism, the U.S. State Department recently removed the designation — a move that came even as Israeli officials continued to label Syria’s interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa an extremist and militia leader. The State Department also simultaneously revoked the terrorist designation for HTS, al-Sharaa’s former group. Second, despite long-running Israeli efforts to keep Syria fragmented and its central government weak, Mazloum Abdi, commander of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, recently announced that his forces would fully integrate into the Damascus government and dissolve the self-declared autonomous Kurdish zone in northern Syria — another major policy victory for Ankara.

“Turkey is playing a long game in Syria,” a second senior Turkish official told MEE. “Unlike the Israelis, we prioritise a stable, sovereign and prosperous country that would strengthen security and peace across the region.”