For years, the left-wing seemed to proudly display their unwavering support for the so-called “resistance” movements across the Arab world, backing figures and regimes that many saw as oppressive rather than liberating. But now, cracks are beginning to show, and their loyalties are shifting in ways that raise more questions than answers. Could it be that their long-held alliances with groups like Hamas and the Palestinian cause are now being reconsidered?
The catalyst appears to be Syria. When Syrians dared to rise against a family dynasty that has spent more than five decades crushing its people, some left-wing figures—once staunch supporters of Bashar al-Assad—found themselves in an awkward position. Assad, the man who brought barrel bombs, chemical weapons, and ruin to entire cities, was a tyrant they had defended without hesitation. It was as if his crimes against humanity were minor blemishes on an otherwise “resistance-worthy” CV. Yet, for years, prominent voices such as George Galloway and Scott Ritter stood resolutely in his corner, as if the devastation he wrought was justifiable.
But now, as Syrians rise with newfound courage to confront Assad’s regime, the left’s stance appears to be wavering. Their retreat, however, feels less like a noble shift in principle and more like an opportunistic escape from a losing cause. It seems as though the tide of Arab advocacy they once so vocally rode has suddenly ebbed—revealing, perhaps, the fragility of their convictions all along.
George Galloway has announced he’s done fighting for the Arabs, as if his “support” was ever a gift worth cherishing. It’s the classic tale of a politician who, after years of disastrous policies leading to economic ruin, resigns with a self-congratulatory farewell, conveniently sidestepping the wreckage they leave behind. For many Muslims, the realisation has long settled in: we never needed Galloway, nor his brand of selective advocacy.
And then there’s Scott Ritter, the left-wing commentator who, post-7th October, played a role in galvanising a so-called “Pro-Palestine” social media movement. Yet, when Syrians finally overthrew Bashar al-Assad’s tyrannical and deeply sectarian regime, Ritter suddenly disavowed the Palestinian cause. Why? Because the idea of a one-state solution—where Muslims, Christians, and Jews could live together in harmony, as they did for centuries—somehow reminded him of “Assad’s Syria.” The irony would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.
The truth is plain: the left’s solidarity with the Arab world was always conditional. It thrived as long as Arabs fit neatly into the propaganda narrative, but the moment they dared to rise up, reclaim their dignity, and expose the lies, that support evaporated. Like rats fleeing a sinking ship, Galloway and Ritter abandoned the cause with astonishing speed.
Yet, credit where it’s due: their flair for the dramatic remains intact. “That part of my life is over,” Galloway declared, as though his exit would leave a void in the struggle for justice. Rest assured, George and Scott, the Syrians who endured years of unimaginable suffering will persevere without your tweets, speeches, or shameless defence of despots. They have always fought for themselves, despite the betrayals of those who once claimed to stand by them.
Written by Rizwan Abu Huthaifa
X: RizAbuHuthaifa
CrossBorders.Press 
Leave a comment