Another comically appropriate anagram of Galloway’s party is “SPECTRE,” given particular resonance now that Galloway has taken to dressing up for his public appearances like a second-rate Dr. No. “A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism,” asserts the first line of the 1848 Manifesto of the Communist Party. Forget Europe, it still haunts Galloway. The “globalized capitalist economic system,” he told Al Jazeera, is “the biggest killer the world has ever known” and has “killed far more people than Adolf Hitler.”
It is nice to hear Galloway denounce a dictator, for once. So pronounced is Galloway’s disgust with Britain and the United States for having deposed his friend Saddam Hussein that he tautologically charged that those countries’ leaders and servicemen would “burn in Hell in the Hell-fires” for their actions. To avoid such a fate, Galloway counseled that “the best thing British troops can do is to refuse to obey illegal orders.” For this the Labour party expelled him but, alas, voters did not follow suit: Galloway remains in parliament.
(To recap: Invading Iraq? Satanic. Invading women? A matter of poor etiquette.)
Speaking of British invasions, in 2006 Piers Morgan interviewed Galloway in print for GQ, and used the opportunity to ask whether a suicide-bomb attack on Tony Blair could be considered as justifiable “revenge for the war on Iraq.” To make sure that his question didn’t sound outré, Morgan made sure to ameliorate it with the caveat that there would be “no other casualties.” “Yes!” responded Galloway. “It would be morally justified,” “entirely logical and explicable,” and “morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq as Blair did.” His bluster didn’t quite hold. “I’m not calling for it,” he quibbled.
But if it’s “morally justified,” one wonders, why not? Galloway is no wallflower. What form of conscience allows for reiterative and tender praise of Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chávez (“the most elected leader on the planet,” apparently) and Bashar Assad, but balks at openly advocating for the British prime minister’s murder? A clue lies in Morgan’s follow-up question: If Galloway were to discover such a plot, would he inform the police? Oh, yes, of course. Why? Because if the plot were a success, it might “generate a new wave of anti-Arab sentiment.” Velleity of velleities. All is velleity.
Not for nothing was the man awarded a Palestinian “passport.” It was a good investment. Since receiving the document, Galloway has insisted that Hamas is not a terrorist organization (neither is Hezbollah, apparently), given “100 vehicles and all of their contents” to the Hamas-run government in the Gaza strip, and assured Al Jazeera that he was reelected in Britain “despite all the efforts made by the British government, the Zionist movement and the newspapers and news media which are controlled by Zionism.”
Still, even for the hard Left, there are lines in the sand. Last week, Galloway stormed out of an Oxford University debate because his opponent was an Israeli. “I’ve been misled,” he shouted. “I don’t debate with Israelis!” This was too much for the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee,” which condemned the “racist” behavior of their ally. When the boys at BDS are distancing themselves from you because you’re too “anti-Semitic,” it’s probably time to take a look in the mirror.
He won’t, of course. If history is anything to go by, George Galloway will just hurtle on, for Comrade Jack is beyond redemption.
— Charles C. W. Cooke is an editorial associate at National Review.