Rabat – Moroccan author and political analyst Samir Bennis said Morocco has sent Spain a “tacit but forceful” warning over Ceuta and Melilla, arguing that Rabat’s longstanding decision to keep the disputed territories outside the immediate bilateral agenda should not be interpreted as a renunciation of its historical position.
Bennis made the remarks in an X post after Minister of Habous and Islamic Affairs Ahmed Taoufik referred to Qadi Ayyad, the prominent Moroccan jurist and scholar born in Ceuta, during Monday’s religious ceremony at the Royal Palace in Rabat to commemorate the Prophet’s birthday.
For Bennis, Taoufik’s reference carried significance beyond its religious and intellectual context. He viewed the invocation of Qadi Ayyad, a figure deeply embedded in Morocco’s religious and cultural history, as a subtle reminder of Ceuta’s place within Morocco’s historical memory at a particularly sensitive moment in Morocco-Spain relations.
The spiritual and emotional symbolism of Ceuta
In his speech, Taoufik traced Morocco’s attachment to the Prophet’s legacy through the works of major Moroccan scholars, including Qadi Ayyad and Al-Azafi, both of whom originated from Ceuta.
“The emotional manifestation is reflected in their bringing to prominence the commemoration of the Prophetic virtues and stations, beginning with Al-Shifa by Qadi Iyad, followed by Al-Durr al-Manzum by Al-Azafi, both scholars being from the city of Ceuta, and culminating in Dala’il al-Khayrat by Imam Al-Jazuli,” Taoufik said.
He also noted that Dala’il al-Khayrat “became a symbol for Moroccans in their mobilization to liberate the occupied cities along the Atlantic coast at the beginning of the modern era.”
Bennis interpreted the reference as a carefully calibrated political signal.
“Now we can finally say that Morocco has sent Spain a warning,” he wrote, arguing that the message amounted to a rejection of what he described as “the denigration of the country and its institutions” and “the falsehoods about its history and the colonial history of Ceuta and Melilla.”
Ceuta crisis adds new political weight
Bennis’s comments come in the lingering wake of the unprecedented migration crisis that shook Ceuta at the end of July, when tens of thousands of people attempted to enter the enclave from Morocco within a remarkably short period.
The episode generated intense political and media scrutiny in Spain and quickly became more than a migration story. It revived questions about border security, Morocco-Spain relations and the strategic vulnerability of Ceuta, while also providing new ammunition for political forces that have long advocated a harder line toward Rabat.
Spanish political discourse around the crisis became particularly confrontational in some quarters, with sections of the right and far right portraying Morocco as a source of strategic pressure on Spain. Some voices framed the mass crossings in terms of an alleged deliberate Moroccan challenge to Spanish sovereignty, while others used the episode to reinforce broader anti-immigration and anti-Morocco narratives.
The crisis also coincided with renewed speculation about Morocco’s intentions toward Ceuta and Melilla, creating an environment in which migration, territorial sovereignty and Morocco’s historical claims became increasingly intertwined.
It is against this backdrop that Bennis placed Taoufik’s reference to Qadi Ayyad.
‘A vestige of European colonialism’
Bennis argued that Morocco’s historical understanding of Ceuta and Melilla fundamentally differs from the narrative advanced by those who insist that the territories “have always been Spanish.”
“However much some may try to maintain that Ceuta and Melilla ‘have always been Spanish,’ for Morocco they are nothing more and nothing less than a vestige of European colonialism on Moroccan territory, whose historical situation remains unresolved,” he wrote.
The statement reflects a longstanding Moroccan position that views the two enclaves through the broader history of European colonial expansion in North Africa.
At the same time, Bennis stressed that Morocco’s historical position should not be conflated with an immediate intention to place the territorial dispute at the heart of its relations with Madrid.
“Through this same message, Morocco seems to be reminding the Spanish that choosing to leave this issue off the bilateral agenda does not mean having renounced its historical position,” he said.
Diplomatic pragmatism is not historical renunciation
Morocco and Spain have spent decades developing a relationship characterized by profound economic, security and diplomatic interdependence. Migration management, trade, investment, counterterrorism and regional stability have all contributed to making the relationship strategically important to both countries.
Within that framework, Rabat has largely avoided making Ceuta and Melilla a central item in its dealings with Madrid.
Bennis argued, however, that such diplomatic compartmentalization should not be mistaken for a transformation of Morocco’s historical position.
“The fact that Morocco has maintained a kind of tacit understanding with Spain for more than three decades to set aside this dispute does not mean, by any means, that it has ceased to consider it a historical anachronism,” he wrote.
His argument rests on a distinction between strategic pragmatism and historical renunciation. Morocco can prioritize its broader relationship with Spain, cooperate closely with Madrid on matters of mutual interest and refrain from placing the enclaves at the center of bilateral diplomacy while still maintaining its longstanding interpretation of their historical status.
Rabat’s ‘strategic priorities lie elsewhere’
Despite his strong language on the historical question, Bennis maintained that Morocco has no immediate interest in transforming Ceuta and Melilla into the central fault line of its relationship with Spain.
“For obvious reasons that anyone familiar with the relations between the two countries should know, Morocco is not, at present, even remotely interested in placing this issue at the center of bilateral relations,” he wrote.
“Its strategic priorities lie elsewhere.”
Bennis does not present Morocco’s position as a call for immediate diplomatic confrontation. Instead, he appears to invoke it as a reminder that the absence of the territorial dispute from the bilateral agenda does not constitute a settlement of the underlying historical disagreement.
Morocco’s latest response to Spain has indeed emerged in the face of what Bennis described as an “avalanche of allegations, speculations and falsehoods” concerning its alleged intentions toward the two enclaves.
A warning without a diplomatic escalation
He ultimately characterized Morocco’s message as one of restraint backed by historical conviction.
Rabat, Bennis argued, has deliberately chosen moderation and strategic cooperation with Madrid for decades. That policy has allowed the two countries to build a relationship in which disputes that could otherwise prove destabilizing remain compartmentalized.
But, in his reading, the recent political climate has prompted Morocco to draw a line between diplomatic moderation and the erasure of its historical narrative.
“Rabat has opted for moderation for decades and for keeping this dispute off the immediate agenda does not mean that it has forgotten its historical position on Ceuta and Melilla,” Bennis concluded.
In this sense, Taoufik’s invocation of Qadi Ayyad assumes a wider resonance in Bennis’s interpretation. Rather than constituting a formal shift in Morocco’s policy toward the two enclaves, it serves as a reminder that history remains present beneath the pragmatic architecture of Morocco-Spain relations.
As Bennis sees it, the message is not that Rabat intends to abandon its strategic partnership with Madrid. It is that cooperation does not require historical amnesia. And that, most importantly, the absence of Ceuta and Melilla from the immediate diplomatic agenda should not be mistaken for Morocco’s renunciation of its historical claim to the two cities.
