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 [2]* 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 [3] 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 [4] 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 [5] and George Galloway [6].
