George Galloway betrays Western Sahara

This hero of the left has again revealed himself as fundamentally reactionary. Those with any familiarity with the struggle in Western Sahara know that talk about opposing the “partition of Morocco” is akin to opposing Israeli withdrawal from “Judea and Samaria.” But even given Galloway’s unseemly alliance with radical Islamism, this makes precious little political sense. His apparent genocide-denial* in the case of Darfur at least has some logic, as Sudan is a fundamentalist regime with anti-imperialist pretensions. Morocco is throughly in the Western camp, a domesticated partner in Washington’s War on Terror. On the other hand, King Mohamed VI and the Islamist militants who occupy his torture chambers would probably agree where Western Sahara is concerned… From the Morocco Times Sept. 18:

British MP supports Morocco’s territorial integrity
In an interview with the Moroccan weekly La Gazette du Maroc, Galloway underlined that he advocates a “peaceful settlement” to the Sahara issue in order to “open the way for a real large Arab Maghreb.”

“I am for Morocco’s position (on the Sahara issue), and I always have been,” he said, stressing he is against “the balkanisation of the Arab region.”

“We should not balkanise the Arab region … I am against the partition of Morocco,” added the British deputy, affirming that “there is no room for small entities.”

*Don’t give us a hard time for citing the jingoistic Disturbingly Yellow to back up this claim. Nobody is more frustrated than we are with the lack of any middle ground between reactionary jihadism and reactionary jingoism.

See our last posts on Western Sahara and George Galloway.

  1. What’s Galloway’s position on Western Sahara?
    Maybe you are supposed to read what has been written by Galloway on the subject, but I do not find any link to his text, and frankly I do not understand if you criticize him for being in favour of an independent Western Sahara or for not supporting the current Moroccan ruling?

    So, what is Galloway’s position on Western Sahara? And which is yours?

  2. Ok, now I get the point
    Having read through the article again I get the point. Galloway favours the Moroccan occupation, which you show by the quote. Chrystal clear. Interesting to hear from someone who has represented the Labour party in the Foreign Affairs Committee, and who supported the PLO and the Kashmiri people.

    I wonder how he would feel about the Danish raising claims on Britain…

    1. I agree with Galloway 100%
      We all know how Morocco was divided by colonialists in the last century. Sahrawi people have always been part of Morocco, and are a fundmental ethnic group in Moroccan society.
      If Algerian army despots think otherwise, we are happy for them to create a barren state within their borders! But Moroccans will be reluctant to recognise such state!
      So what is the fuss about someone how happens to know this historical fact?
      Enough divisions. Can Maghreb countries not learn from the EU integration?

      1. Why don’t you ask the Sahrawis what they think?
        The “historical fact” (as the World Court ruled) is that Western Sahara was never a part of the Moroccan state until the invasion of 1975. You probably loved the Indonesian invasion of East Timor too.