The scenes from Ceuta were tragic. Thousands of desperate people attempted to cross from Morocco into the Spanish enclave, which left dozens dead and reignited one of Europe’s most contentious political debates. Yet almost as quickly as the humanitarian dimensions of the crisis emerged, they were eclipsed by something else.

Within hours, social media was filled with warnings of an “Islamic invasion”. The hashtag #StopIslam spread rapidly among far-right networks. Politicians who had long campaigned against immigration seized on the events as proof that Europe faced not simply a border challenge, but a civilisational one. Calls for tougher border controls quickly followed, while Italy announced it was reintroducing border checks with Spain.

The speed of that transformation is perhaps the most revealing aspect of the crisis.

Before investigators had established the full circumstances of the crossings, before many of those who died had even been identified, prominent politicians, commentators and online campaigners already appeared certain of what Ceuta meant. That certainty deserves as much scrutiny as the tragedy itself.

The question to pose right now, therefore, is who benefited from the way the events in Ceuta were immediately interpreted.

The beneficiaries were quickly apparent. Europe’s nationalist right found fresh material to reinforce long-standing warnings about migration and Islam. Anti-Muslim campaigners gained another opportunity to portray Muslims as an internal security threat. At the same time, the events fed into a broader narrative advanced by the Israeli government and echoed by its political allies in Europe: that Muslim immigration, rising criticism of Israel and concerns about........

© Al Jazeera