LAURENCE SIMON has a point bashing Zapatero for his hypocrisy regarding kefiyya-gate, writing:

Moratinos, Solana, and Zapatero should stop looking East and instead should look South at Spain's own brutal and shameful longtime occupation of another country's lands.

According to the CIA World Factbook, Spain currently occupies sovereign Moroccan territory, the land of Arab Muslims:

Morocco protests Spain's control over the coastal enclaves of Ceuta, Melilla, and the islands of Penon de Velez de la Gomera, Penon de Alhucemas and Islas Chafarinas, and surrounding waters...

Spain uses attack dogs that are trained to kill, armed troops with shoot-to-kill orders, double-fencing, barbed and razor wire, and electrified barriers to protect their illegal and humiliating occupation of Ceuta and Melilla.

Territory won in colonial wars on conquest, not defensive wars protecting Spain from utter destruction and its population from genocidal massacre.

Territory won in colonial wars on conquest, not defensive wars protecting Spain from utter destruction and its population from genocidal massacre.And unlike Gaza, Judea, Samaria, Golan, and Southern Lebanon, if Spain were to hand over that territory now they wouldn't be sacrificing Spanish security in the slightest or putting the existence of Spain at risk by one bit.

I'm not one who doesn't like a little Zapatero-bashing, but in this case I think the analogy doesn't work. I won't repeat myself, but here's is what I wrote regarding another usual analogy used when discussing Ceuta and Melilla: Gibraltar:

Gibraltar is a colony, while Ceuta and Melilla are not. A colony is a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state and the territory inhabited by them (Merriam-Webster). It is also a territory that, while keeping its administrative ties to the mainland, is ruled by a different legal regime than that of its metropolis. This is the case of Gibraltar, whose set of laws have turned it into an offshore banking point, with all its implications in money laundering and tax evasion.

But Ceuta and Melilla are two integral parts of Spain's legal regime, and so they are subject to the same set of laws as the mainland territory (including a remarkable degree of de-centralization; as you know, Spain is organized in 17 Autonomous Communities, roughly similar to the US organization into states). They are both represented in the Spanish Congress and Senate as the other mainland autonomous communities are. Just like, say, Alaska (Hawaii is an archipelago so the analogy doesn't work), they may not have a contiguous border with the mainland territory, but they are an integral part of its legal, fiscal and political system at the same level, with the same rights and obligations, as the rest of the country.

In another post, I also wrote:

unlike Gibraltar and other colonies, Ceuta and Melilla have exactly the same legal regime than mainland Spain. Colonies tend to have a different legal system -frequently as a tax haven, as The Rock itself-, whereas the two Spanish cities in Northern Africa are ruled by exactly the same set of laws than, say, Barcelona. And both cities have congressmen, senators sitting in Madrid's parliament in the same footing than congressmen and senators coming from other parts of the country. Whether the legal system is the same or not is the main trait of colonies, not whether they're adjoining another country with no physical boundary with the mainland. Otherwise it could be argued that Alaska is one!

UPDATE. Easy, man. I said you had a point. And of course no historical analogy is 100% accurate; you can always find some point to throw at somebody else's face. And in fact the Alaska comparison was just in passing; the gist of my argument was to say that the Middle East occupation on the one hand and Ceuta and Melilla on the other is not correct. That's all. I could have used the same tone you've used but chose not to. Don't really know how you could take it as a personal attack or something. Whatever.

UPDATE II. My buddy Marzo, in Saragossa (Spain), who knows everything, tells me about two counter-examples especially addressed to Laurence Simon: Angle Inlet (or Northwest Angle) and Point Roberts, in Washington. I admit I didn't know about them, and they prove that territorial issues can be found anywhere. Plus, reader Mike H. emails a reminder of US' history too:

New Mexico and Arizona are going to require razor wire for about the same reasons as the two cities in north Africa and they were filched from Mexico during the Mexican - American war.

UPDATE III. Another buddy, John @ Iberian Notes, comments.

Click here to send me an email