When Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez stepped before cameras in Madrid on 8 September, denouncing Israel’s war in Gaza as “genocide” and unveiling a package of measures unprecedented in European politics, it became immediately clear that Madrid was breaking from the EU’s long-standing stance of caution.
His government announced a decree-law which formalises an arms embargo, bans on military transits through Spanish ports and airspace, tighter restrictions on imports from illegal settlements, and a pledge to double humanitarian aid to Gaza by 2026.
The symbolism was as important as the content. Sánchez was the first European head of government to explicitly call Israel’s military campaign a genocide last July. For critics in Israel and some EU capitals, this was an unnecessary escalation. But for supporters, it was an overdue moral stand.
“Spain is seen as the radical country, the one acting in a radical way, but if we go back to what the European Union theoretically has in place for such obvious violations of international law and human rights, basically what Spain is doing should be the minimum that all EU member states should be doing,” Moussa Bourekba, a research fellow at the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, told The New Arab.
Israel’s immediate response after the 8 September announcement was hostile. It barred Spanish Deputy Prime Minister Yolanda Díaz and Youth Minister Sira Rego from entering the country, accusing Madrid of antisemitism and political grandstanding.
Spain counter-escalated, formally denying entry to Israeli far-right ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. José Manuel Albares, Spain’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, also reminded the public that if Netanyahu were to visit the country, the government would enforce the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant, in full compliance with its obligations.
The exchange underlined that Madrid was prepared to confront Israel at the ministerial level, not just rhetorically.
From Madrid to Brussels
Just days later, the European Commission appeared to follow where Spain had led. In her State of the Union address, Ursula von der Leyen announced that the Commission would propose suspending payments to Israel, imposing sanctions on extremist ministers and violent settlers, and, most dramatically, suspending the trade concessions that form the core of the EU–Israel Association Agreement.
For the first time since the agreement was signed in 1995, Brussels was moving to withdraw Israel’s preferential access to the EU’s single market, although, for some, the proposal is modest and inadequate.
“The European Commission proposal was long overdue and is absolutely too little, too late,” Shada Islam, a Brussels-based analyst on EU Affairs, told TNA.
The suspension of parts of the Association Agreement will require approval not by a simple majority, but by a qualified majority in the Council.
“What this means is that suspension requires support from at least 55% of member states, representing at least 65% of the EU’s population. Germany and Italy together account for around 30% of the EU population. If both abstain or oppose, they make reaching the 65% threshold much harder, even if smaller, more critical states like Ireland, Spain, or Belgium push hard. They simply don’t carry the demographic weight,” Islam said.
However, according to her, the proposal still has some merit, as it demonstrates that Israel is losing even some of its most stalwart supporters within the EU leadership.
“What is more likely is that a ‘coalition of the willing’ within the EU might move ahead with unilateral restrictions as they are doing with arms exports to Israel, and recognition of a Palestinian state. They may also suspend trade with Israel,” according to Islam. “I have been saying for two years that such national action is required because the collective EU is stuck.”
When it comes to targeted sanctions on some Israeli extremists, as the Commission has also proposed, unanimous approval is needed. This sets an even tougher standard, since just one country - such as Hungary or the Czech Republic - can block any action.
“This is, of course, another sign of the lack of EU coherence, but let’s be realistic, these 27 member states have different historical links, and guilt, when it comes to Israel, different geographies, different cultural affinities and different political structures,” says Islam.
However, this apparent shift is not just driven by political pressure from countries such as Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia, but also by growing public pressure.
“I think that what is happening, both at the level of the European Union and with this new wave of states recognising Palestine, is basically that Israel’s official narrative of a war of self-defence and a war against Hamas is no longer sustainable. It no longer holds up in any way,” added Bourekba, from the Barcelona Centre of International Affairs.
“In this context, Europeans are essentially looking for a way to wash their hands so that, the day they are judged by public opinion and by history, it looks like they did something,” he says. “I don’t think political leaders are stupid. They look at polls, they follow public opinion, and they can see that public opinion has been shifting,” he adds.
The critics in Spain: A fake arms embargo
Although Spain’s decree-law codifying an arms embargo was officially approved and implemented last Wednesday, critics insist the measure falls far short of a real embargo.
“The royal decree-law, as currently drafted, does not respond to the urgency and gravity of the situation today in Palestine, both in Gaza and in the West Bank, and it will not have a practical effect in transforming the situation,” Ana Sánchez, spokesperson of the Solidarity Network Against the Occupation of Palestine, told TNA.
According to the spokesperson, the decree leaves significant loopholes. Previously awarded contracts with Israel’s defence industry and its subsidiaries are unaffected, Israeli companies remain eligible for contracting with the public administration, and areas such as technological collaboration, military cooperation, and financial assistance are not addressed.
“What we really need is to strengthen monitoring and scrutiny measures for the cargo in transit that continues to pass through the ports,” Sánchez stated. “Until these measures are reinforced, our ports and airports will continue to serve as a sieve for weapons and energy that fuel the genocide against the Palestinian people.”
The actions taken so far by Spain, however, are likely to have an international diplomatic impact.
“Amnesty International welcomes the adoption of the embargo as it stands. The decree-law is long overdue, late into the ongoing genocide, but it can be improved by Parliament once ratified," Alberto Estévez, the arms trade spokesperson for Amnesty, told TNA.
"It will definitely have an impact, particularly if other EU Member States, like France, Germany, the Czech Republic and Romania - which have exported the largest number of weapons to Israel - take action. We hope it will have a domino effect.”
He also argues that the law is not “a face-saving effort and will have an impact on Spanish arms companies”.
Both spokespersons stress, however, that a major obstacle is US bases in Spain, considered strategic logistical hubs that sustain Israel's genocide, which remain fully intact.
“What must be done is a total and absolute rupture of relations, isolating Israel completely until it respects international law and the rights of the Palestinian people,” Ana Sánchez stressed.
This makes some critics question whether Pedro Sánchez’s apparently tougher stance on Israel is motivated as much by domestic politics as by principle.
“Gaza and Israel are on the international political agenda, as well as on the Spanish agenda, in the confrontation between PSOE (Spanish Socialist Party) and PP (Conservatives leading the opposition). It has become a polarising issue,” says Estévez. “However, realpolitik should not be at the expense of human rights.”
Although the right and far-right opposition is fragile, having exposed itself as a polarising, content-less bastion with no real political project, Pedro Sánchez’s government is simultaneously battling corruption scandals and growing public discontent over inflation, housing shortages, and other mounting pressures.
In this reading, the urgency of Spain’s Israel policy may be a way for Sánchez to shore up his image, distract from domestic troubles, or galvanise support ahead of budget votes.
Yet, Amnesty International’s Estévez remains cautious. “There is no evidence to suggest the government is using this as a matter of distraction against the internal situation. They are acting in accordance with their obligations to prevent genocide, seek justice and avoid arms for atrocities. More can be done, but we commend the government for its actions and wish other governments did the same.”
Turning point or political moment?
Less than one week after Spain and the EU’s announcements, an independent United Nations Commission of Inquiry delivered a report concluding that Israel is committing genocide under the definition in the 1948 Genocide Convention.
These findings give European actors stronger grounds - legal, moral and political - to ratchet up pressure.
“We have the law on our side. There are domestic obligations and international treaties which are supposed to steer our decisions and actions,” said Islam, the Brussels-based analyst.
“These create obligations under the Genocide Convention and international humanitarian law. EU states are parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and therefore have legal obligations to cooperate, and they must comply fully.”
The UN’s international confirmation gave Spain President Sánchez’s claim more weight, transforming what had until then been Spain’s solitary diplomatic escalation into a growing pressure point within Europe.
Whether Europe follows Spain down this path depends on what happens next month in the Council. If the Commission’s proposals are watered down or blocked, Madrid’s gambit could look like a lonely crusade. If they pass intact, Spain may be remembered as the state that forced the EU to recalibrate its relationship with Israel.
“What fundamentally is at stake today is not simply the need to stop a genocide in Gaza, but rather whether there is any room left to salvage this so-called rules-based international order,” says Bourekba.
“The European Union is supposedly the archetype, the most illustrative symbol of this international order - in theory, at least. In practice, its silence has been essentially complicit. The way Europe’s double standards in Ukraine and Gaza are now fully exposed to the eyes of the world will cause very long-term reputational damage for Europeans globally.”
Javier Jennings Mozo is an audio-visual freelance journalist based in Cairo who specialises in social issues. He has previously covered the Balkans and Spain
Follow him on X: @javierjenningsm