José Manuel Albares: "This war has no other objective than to turn Gaza into a vast cemetery."

For the first time since the start of the Israeli offensive, Europe is beginning to have a firm voice in calling for an end to the barbarity against civilians in Gaza. Spain has been one of the most active countries from the outset. This is reiterated by Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares in an interview in which he analyzes the situation in the Gaza Strip and also the war in Ukraine, as well as the issue of Catalan in Europe.

There is talk of a ceasefire in Gaza, but how credible is it?

— A definitive ceasefire is necessary. The unconditional release of all hostages still in the hands of the Hamas terrorist organization is necessary. The unconditional release of all hostages is necessary, and it is a minimum of humanity for Israel to stop them. This war no longer has any other objective than to turn Gaza into an immense cemetery.

In your opinion, is what we see in Gaza a genocide?

— The International Court of Justice is investigating it. Spain is part of the South African request for an investigation. There is a convention to punish and prevent genocide, on which Spain has based its claim. And, clearly, there are typologies outlined in this convention, such as preventing the entry of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip or failing to comply with the rulings of the International Court of Justice, which many months ago declared that the military operation in Rafah should be halted. The forced displacement of population, as is occurring in the West Bank, is also contrary to international law, as is the expansion of illegal settlements. Therefore, there are flagrant violations, and Spain wants the International Court of Justice to rule.

To what extent is Spain willing to enforce this imperative?

— Spain has led the EU's position from the beginning. Everything Spain has done, does, and will continue to do has a single objective: achieving peace. And this isn't against anyone, nor, of course, against the State of Israel, whose existence is most certainly part of the two-state solution. Currently, we have requested the suspension of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Israel based on Article 2, respect for human rights. We have been requesting the review, which the High Representative is currently underway, for a year, but also the suspension. We have requested an embargo on arms sales to Israel. The Middle East doesn't need more weapons; on the contrary, we need a de-escalation, a ceasefire, and a definitive peace. And we must continue moving forward on the path of sanctions. Spain already has a list of thirteen sanctioned violent settlers. The European Union, at Spain's request but unanimously by the Twenty-Seven, has another. We must continue moving forward. We cannot allow those who believe in violence and who want to make a two-state solution impossible to travel and interact with the European Union with complete normality.

They're pushing for the suspension of the association agreement with Israel in the EU, but what support do they get?

— Seventeen states have spoken very clearly in favor of the review. Now it is up to the High Representative to conduct it, and we have asked him to do so swiftly. I have no doubt how this review will end. The images are clear, the public statements are clear, the actions of the Israeli army are clear. It is evident that human rights are not being respected. Therefore, what matters are the actions. The High Representative will provide a battery of actions, and the states will speak out. Spain has already publicly highlighted some of them. The suspension of the association agreement, for me, is clear evidence, and I will express it as such. And there are many countries who think this way.

To what extent is it feasible for Spain to dispense with Israeli military equipment?

— Since October 7, Spain has not issued new licenses for arms exports to Israel, nor has it permitted such operations, even if the licenses were issued previously. Nor do we permit ship ladders carrying arms shipments destined for Israel. This is what we are requesting, also at the European level and from other states. I believe it is obvious and common sense to understand that, in the midst of a war, especially a war of this type, which has no objective beyond causing more destruction and more deaths of civilians and children, more weapons are not needed.

He talks about the objectives of the war and the President of the United States, no less, refers to a resort in Gaza.

— Gaza is the land of the Gazan Palestinians; it belongs to them. Gaza is part of the realistic and viable future Palestinian state we recognized a year ago. Therefore, only the Palestinians decide the future of Gaza.

Can we continue to speak of Israel as a democratic state?

— Democracies don't wage war. Democracies seek peace, precisely because they believe in dialogue as the way to resolve internal and external conflicts. I want the best for the people of Israel. I believe in the State of Israel and its existence, but I also believe in a two-state solution. And I believe that the same right, exactly the same right that the people of Israel have to a state, peace, and security, also extends to the Palestinian people.

Why isn't the withdrawal of the Spanish ambassador being considered?

— Because Israel is part of the two-state solution. Sooner or later, within this framework we are creating for peace, we will have to have Israel on board. None of this is against Israel, and I need to maintain contact and a diplomatic channel of dialogue with Israel, because, in the end, dialogue is always more powerful than confrontation. I do this for the exact same reasons I maintain the embassy in Moscow. One day, we will have to find a solution. modus vivendi with Russia. The withdrawal of ambassadors is something that not even the Arab states most committed to the Palestinian cause have done.

Is the two-state solution still alive?

— There are people in Israel actively working every day to ensure that this doesn't become a reality. The reality on the ground—both the war in Gaza, the constant displacement of the population in the Strip, and the illegal expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank—makes it very difficult. All the more reason for us all to recognize the State of Palestine, because it's the best tool we have right now to protect it. And, above all, There is no alternative to the two-state solutionThere is no alternative to a Palestinian state. What would be the solution? Kill all the Palestinians? Deport them to who knows where? Perhaps the Moon or Mars? Will Israel grant Israeli nationality to the millions of Palestinians currently living in the occupied territories? Or will it create a Bantustan within Israel with limited rights, as if it were a form of apartheid? All of these situations are absolutely abhorrent. So, we move forward with what Israelis and Palestinians have negotiated so many times in history. Everything is negotiated: parameters, timelines, even population share swaps. And we set in motion what we know is the only path to peace and stability in the Middle East, to Israel's security. Of course, Israel has the right to security, and I support any measure that strengthens it. This is the main one. And a realistic and viable Palestinian state, I am clear, is Gaza and the West Bank connected by a corridor that gives them geographical continuity and under a single Palestinian authority, with an outlet to the sea and a port in Gaza, and with the capital in East Jerusalem. This is the guarantee of peace for all, of justice for all. in the Palestinian people, who do not have to be eternally condemned to being a people of refugees.Security for the State of Israel, which has legitimate demands for security, stability, and peace for all the states of the Middle East, which will also have to recognize and normalize relations with the State of Israel, as I tell my Arab friends, and they agree with me.

How would you define the current situation in Ukraine?

It is a humanitarian catastrophe and a flagrant violation of international law. A war of aggression by Russia against a sovereign state, against a democratic state, against a state that had its international borders perfectly defined. And there is only one solution: for Vladimir Putin to tell his troops to return to the borders of the Russian Federation, which they should never have left. And, without a doubt, Spain and the rest of the European Union will stand by Ukraine and President Zelensky for as long as necessary, because what is at stake in Ukraine, exactly as what is at stake in Gaza, is also the world we want for tomorrow. Whether international law prevails or the law of the jungle. Whether it's the force of reason or the reason of might. This is what's at stake. Ukraine's security is, of course, closely linked to Europe's security. That's why we will never abandon Ukraine.

And, diplomatically, how would you define the situation with the President of the United States, who has said that the Russian President is completely crazy and hasn't really contributed to making progress on the issue?

— For a long time, I've seen President Zelensky presenting peace plans, accepting unconditional ceasefires, which is what those who want peace and those who want this war to end do, and I see Vladimir Putin engaging in delaying tactics, setting conditions for the ceasefire, giving the word peace a meaning very different from what a just peace is. Therefore, I see two very different attitudes. President Zelensky never wanted this war, just as we Europeans never wanted it. This is a one-man war.President Zelensky seeks peace, an end to the war, and President Putin's sole policy is to continue the war.

Is diplomacy more difficult today when the United States doesn't believe in multilateral organizations or institutions?

— It is more necessary than ever, precisely because international law, the United Nations, and UN agencies like UNRWA are being openly questioned and even attacked. There are a number of challenges on the planet that we can only address globally. Jungle, the law of the strongest. It's not possible in the 21st-century world.

And aren't we in this regression?

— There are those who want to impose this retreat. That's why it's more important than ever for Europe to take up these banners—the fight against climate change and the Paris Agreement, multilateralism, the defense of the United Nations—firmly. Because many of these concepts are Europe's own, and the entire world expects us to be the bastion that defends them.

Has Europe benefited from strong American leadership and is now faced with growing up?

— Without a doubt, Europe must advance its sovereignty. We must advance our own prosperity and take it much more into our own hands, removing all obstacles in the internal market, working with all the necessary partners around the world. Our security must increasingly be in our hands—security in the sense of defense and deterrence, but also our energy security, our interconnections to allow this single market to reach its full potential, the competitiveness of our companies, all of this.

This also implies higher defense spending...

— Greater spending on security, which includes defense, but also on cybersecurity, on the competitiveness of our companies, and on ensuring energy flows. We have a very aggressive power, constantly rearming, like Russia. And we see how the new US administration has new positions, both on trade and Euro-Atlantic security.

Will the US trade war with Europe bring it closer to China?

— It will bring Europe closer to all its partners and allies. We want the transatlantic bond, including in trade, to be strengthened and maintained as much as possible. But we see, for example, that Mercosur can be one of our great partners; there are countries in Africa, a continent very close to Spain, that can be great partners; and in Asia, of course, India, China, Vietnam... We must move forward with India, with China as well, and we have to see when China can be a partner and when it is a competitor.

Will the next General Affairs Council again address the official status of Catalan?

— We are talking with the seven countries that said they still needed more time to join the unanimous vote. What we are asking for is specificity. We have seen that, on each occasion we have brought this issue to the Council, there were states that said they still did not see the necessary specificity regarding the financial aspects or that they had doubts about legal aspects or that this could create a precedent. What I am asking of you is that, once and for all, we stop speculating and speaking in generic terms. What specific aspect of the financial aspects do you think still needs to be strengthened in the wording of the Spanish proposal? And we will do so. We believe everything is clear. There is a Commission report explaining that the annual cost of the three languages is just over €130 million. There is a letter from me from a year ago indicating that Spain will cover all the costs. Not just those little more than €130 million, but all the costs. Therefore, I believe the states must have absolute peace of mind. But, okay, I'm willing, as I've been working with all the states for months, to address any questions you may have. But please tell me specifically what concerns you. Do you need us to analyze the unit cost of each sheet of paper used for a translation? Let's do it, no problem, but let's do it quickly. Because we submitted the request two years ago.

And what about the legal aspects?

— There are many opinions. Spain's, which has put it in writing, is legal. But the important thing is what the treaties say. The treaties have a single article on the linguistic regime of the European Union, and it is very clear. Decisions on the multilingual regime of the European Union are made unanimously in the Council. Period. It is a political decision. It is made by the states. If there is serious doubt about it, then we approve the measure and go to the European Court of Justice, which is the only entity that can issue truly binding judgments and not mere opinions. Therefore, honestly, I don't see how this can be an obstacle. We have made it clear that the languages must be languages originating in Member States of the European Union, that these languages must be included in the Constitution of those Member States upon accession to the European Union. It is an unavoidable and irreversible path for the Spanish government. Making Catalan an official language of the European Union, just like Basque and Galician, is a fight I will never give up and one that will be achieved sooner or later.

Does the PP have the capacity to stall the issue?

— The governments that have shown themselves, let's say, unwilling yet and have requested more time to continue working, many of them have parties that are part of the European People's Party political family. Therefore, the People's Party, as a Spanish party, would say it almost has an obligation to convey to these parties that this is a very serious issue, central to Spain, because it affects Spain's multilingual national identity and because that's how we Spaniards have organized ourselves in our Constitution, because that's how we Spaniards perceive and project ourselves in Catalan, because there are 10 million official speakers. The PP cannot turn its back on 20 million Spaniards.40% of our country, that is, those who every day in their lives, their work life, their coexistence, their leisure time, spend their time in more than one of Spain's official languages, because the reality of many Spanish towns and cities is that two official languages coexist alongside them. I have spent this entire legislative term offering a state pact to the Popular Party and the rest of the political forces. Because it is our national identity. And the European Union treaties also state that we must protect the national identity of each Member State. I find it inconceivable that a person like Mr. Feijóo would go against Galician. I cannot conceive that a Galician would go against Galician.

Would you dare to give a date?

— It's difficult because we have to talk to these seven states. What I can't accept anymore is the generic nature of things: "I have doubts about the legal aspects," "I think the financial aspects aren't solid enough." Which ones? We will undoubtedly continue to bring the issue to the General Affairs Council.

The People's Party (PP) has described your government as mafia-like. What is the opposition's strategy?

— Generate noise to the point where no one hears anything, no one understands anything, no one believes anything.

—