No. The Moors they were fighting were descendants of the Moors who invaded Iberia six centuries prior.
(1) Its sovereigns - the various kingdoms of Spain - were the preexisting government authorities,
A spurious reading of the past. Which of these states continued to exist?
its cause was the expulsion of a foreign invader
A spurious reading again. The "foreign invadeders" were 20th-generation descendants of the Moors who invaded.
its intention was the restoration of lands that had been stolen from it by that invader.
Spurious again. By this logic, it would be Just War to drive the Afrikaners out of South Africa, the Anglos out of Texas and the Jews out of Israel.
The first battle of the Reconquista was at Covadonga in 722. The Moors arrived 11 years, not 6 centuries, prior. The 6 century date marks the period between Covadonga and the fall of Grenada in 1492, the last remnant of the Moorish outposts in Spain.
A spurious reading of the past. Which of these states continued to exist?
Wrong as usual. The surviving sovereign was Pelagius of Asturias. He was the Visagothic Duke of Asturias in northern Spain at the time of the Moorish invasion. He escaped the conquest in 711, launched a rebellion in 718, and defeated the Moors at Covadonga in 722. Pelagius' heirs continued to liberate Iberia and split the northern third of of the peninsula into three kingdoms, Galacia, Portugal, and Leon, in the early 900's. The Asturian line traces through various dynasties from that point through Ferdinand and Isabella.
A spurious reading again. The "foreign invadeders" were 20th-generation descendants of the Moors who invaded.
20 generations in 11 years between the Moorish conquest and Covadonga? Those moors must've done a lot of breeding!
By this logic, it would be Just War to drive the Afrikaners out of South Africa, the Anglos out of Texas and the Jews out of Israel.
Not really. At least portions of all three of those regions were virtually uninhabited at the time that the first modern inhabitants arrived. Your best case is probably South Afrika, which was genuinely colonial in nature, but in the other two it is non-existant.
In the case of Israel the current inhabitants are descendents of prior inhabitants who resided there in antiquity. Much of the so-called Palestinian population, which is largely Jordanian and Egyptian in origin, did not even arrive there until the 19th and 20th centuries.
Texas is a similar case. When Anglos arrived in the 1820's it was virtually uninhabited by anything other than Indians from tribes that are long since gone. The "indigenous" Mexican population numbered only a couple thousand for the entire state, none of whom had any relation to the average Mexican illegal from Chiapas or Yucatan who swims across the Rio Grande today. It consisted mostly of descendents of European Spaniards who settled the region's Indian missions in prior centuries and a handful of minor Spanish noblemen. The only notable permanent settlements in the entire state were a small mission town called San Antonio, a handful of lesser mission villages to its southeast, and a pirate hideout named Campeche on Galveston island. Texas circa 1820 was virtually vacant, and permanent settlements other than San Antonio did not even arrive there until the Americans came.