Originally written October 12 2005
When George Galloway, a member of Parliament in Britain’s Respect Party, visited San Francisco last month, he was greeted as a conquering hero.
Galloway was wrapping up his Stand Up and Be Counted Tour, which happened to coincide with the unveiling of his new book, “Mr. Galloway Goes to Washington.” The book reportedly details Galloway’s experience before a U.S. Senate subcommittee regarding allegations that he’d personally profited from the U.N. oil-for-food scandal.
In San Francisco for a book signing, Galloway certainly picked fertile ground for his leftist politics. Speakers at last month’s anti-war rally described him in only the most glowing terms, and now it seems that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has decided to bestow an official commendation upon Galloway. Supervisors Chris Daly and Ross Mirkarimi, two frequent promoters of ridiculous resolutions, presented this one in September, and it was adopted by the board with nary an objection. According to the resolution, Galloway is being honored for “his efforts to promote peace in Iraq.”
If peace were all that Galloway was pushing, this resolution might be seen merely as a harmless “only in San Francisco” gesture. But instead of preaching peace, all too often Galloway seems to be preaching jihad. Far from living up to the anti-war mantle he claims, Galloway has repeatedly made excuses for terrorism, defended dictators and employed the language of Islamic terrorists in their propaganda battle against the West.
While Galloway claims to be a socialist, he often sounds more like an Islamist. Not only does he appear regularly on Arab television stations such as Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV, he’s adept at playing to his audience. Employing the type of anti-Western rhetoric more commonly heard on al Qaeda videos, Galloway appears to be aiming for the lowest common denominator.
One-State Solution
Earlier this year, he played a prominent part in a rally organized by the British Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Speeches there called for both a general boycott of Israel and its outright destruction. There was no pretense about pushing for a two-state solution, but rather a one-state solution—the Palestinian one where Israel used to be. Considering Galloway’s earlier description of Israel as “this little Hitler State on the Mediterranean,” his presence at the rally was fitting.
But it doesn’t end with Israel. In a recent appearance on Abu Dhabi TV, Galloway referred to British and American troops as “Crusader soldiers” and warned of the “hell-fires” that would consume the West in retaliation for the war. Over on Al-Jazeera, Galloway lamented “the rape of these two beautiful Arab daughters,” referring to Jerusalem and Baghdad. Such overwrought language is typical of those for whom the Crusades are a current event and rape is a metaphor for foreign policy. It would seem that Galloway fits that profile.
Galloway further demonstrated such reprehensible views in an interview with the government-controlled Syria Times. He defined terrorism as “resistance,” labeled terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere “freedom fighters” and praised Hamas and Hezbollah. If this doesn’t constitute outright support for terrorism, then what does?
During last month’s debate on the war in Iraq with Christopher Hitchens, Galloway delivered more of the same. Although Hitchens pummeled him with facts, Galloway relied mostly on heated rhetoric. He never did respond to Hitchens’ repeated calls that he explain his July 30 visit to Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and his speech at the Al-Assad library in which he publicly praised the “145 military operations” conducted by terrorists in Iraq. Hitchens also raised the issue of Galloway’s infamous quote, “Syria is lucky to have Bashar al-Assad as her president”—but to no avail.
Likewise, when Hitchens brought up Galloway’s relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, Galloway denied it all, despite substantial evidence to the contrary. Galloway simply attributed Hitchens’ criticism to the “neocon rot” that had “seeped into his soul.” That Galloway resorted to ad hominem attacks and childish name-calling throughout the debate was the icing on the cake. When Hitchens dubbed his ranting “sinister piffle,” he was being generous.
Blame-The-Victim Mode
After the brutal terrorist attacks on his own country earlier this year, Galloway immediately launched into blame-the-victim mode. Before the bodies had even been collected, Galloway had issued a statement condemning the attacks, but in the same breath he blamed them on Tony Blair for going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. His solution was to immediately pull British troops out of Iraq because, he claimed, “Only then will the innocents here and abroad be able to enjoy a life free of the threat of needless violence.” Somehow, I doubt that the premature withdrawal of coalition troops would leave Iraqis free of violence. As for the rest of us, terrorist arrests and threats in Spain continued long after Spain pulled its troops out of Iraq, and countries with no troops in Iraq are hit by terrorist attacks on a regular basis.
Galloway later returned to the subject in the House of Commons, where he compared the military defeat of former terrorist stronghold Fallujah to the attacks on innocent civilians in London. In his interview with the Syria Times, Galloway went even further and said of so-called state terrorism, “It is exactly the same as people blowing up buses, except it’s much bigger.” As senior Labor backbencher Stephen Pound put it, “I thought George had sunk to the depths of sickness in the past but this exceeds anything he has done before.”
Galloway has been an MP since 1987, but his membership in the Labor Party ended in 2003. His relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime and his reliance on Islamist rhetoric eventually became too much for them and he was expelled. Labor chairman Ian McCartney went so far as to accuse Galloway of inciting “foreign forces to rise up against British troops.”
Galloway found a more appropriate home in the far-left Respect Party. Formed to capitalize on anti-war sentiment in the United Kingdom, Respect sought to challenge Labor’s dominance among Muslim voters. Indeed, Galloway may very well owe his seat to the large Bangladeshi Muslim population of his Bethnal Green and Bow district. His opposition to Britain’s new anti-terrorism laws was certainly a mark in his favor. It’s no coincidence that one of his campaign slogans was, “If you make war against Muslims abroad, you are going to end up making war against Muslims at home!”
Galloway was able to unseat his Labor Party opponent Oona King, a black Jewish woman, largely because of her support for Tony Blair and the war in Iraq. Some say her being Jewish didn’t help her chances, either. The fact that King had her tires slashed and eggs hurled at her during an event to honor East End Jews killed by Nazi bombing raids during WWII adds to this impression.
Naivete Demonstrated
Galloway’s popularity among Muslim voters does not make him immune to the hostility of extremists. Three members of the radical group al Muhajiroun were arrested for disrupting one of his campaign events, where they threatened Galloway’s life and accused him of being a “false prophet.” Such groups are opposed to the very idea of Muslims voting, for that entails taking part in a democratic process they consider heresy.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, has said much the same thing about Iraqis voting in elections. In thinking that he could placate Islamists simply by speaking their language, Galloway demonstrated the naivete of those who foolishly choose to align themselves with such forces.
What’s more disappointing is that so many among the anti-war movement are willing to throw their support behind Galloway. Intent on aligning themselves with anyone who shares the same perceived enemies, they have done more to undermine their credibility than any fictitious Karl Rove plot ever could. If the anti-war movement wants to be taken seriously, then it will have to dissociate itself from figures such as Galloway.
The San Francisco supervisors might consider doing the same thing. Instead of issuing commendations, they should be distancing themselves from such a polarizing figure. But I’m not holding my breath.
- Post 9/11:The Fight Must Go On - Friday September 11, 2009 at 11:11 am
- Fuel or folly? Ethanol and the law of unintended consequences - Tuesday May 20, 2008 at 6:34 pm
- Homeless by the bay - Tuesday April 22, 2008 at 12:01 am
