Most of the available literature on Western Sahara deals with the history of the conflict, its location in geopolitical and economic strategies, and its impact on relations in the Maghreb. However, in the Mashreq, there is little interest and indeed scant knowledge about Western Sahara and the protracted struggle of its people for self-determination. Undoubtedly, the lack of attention granted the conflict by the Arab League, and Morocco’s role in swaying many Arab states towards its position, played a role in obscuring the Sahrawis and their predicament in the Middle East. Yet, although it appears as an isolated case, and on the margins of its larger Arab milieu, various aspects of the Western Sahara case lend themselves to meaningful connections and comparative analyses with Middle Eastern societies. Based on anthropological research, this paper draws comparisons between the Sahrawi and Palestinian national movements. Although there are fundamental distinctions that characterize the two cases, such as: historical circumstances, socioeconomic and cultural formations, etc., they also portray many similarities. The paper tackles two interrelated themes. The first traces the genesis of nationalism, and the historical and socio-cultural contexts that reshaped their contemporary ideologies and nationalist discourses. It posits that Sahrawi nationalism is more concerned with delineating markers to distinguish Sahrawis as a people/nation for two main reasons: first, because their contemporary adversaries are also Arabs and Muslims who aim to forcibly integrate them under Moroccan sovereignty; secondly, a number of Arab governments have supported Morocco and neglected their plight. This compelled them to turn elsewhere for support, mainly to sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, where they enjoy more support. The second theme deals with Sahrawis and Palestinians as nations which established “quasi-states.” The status and hegemonic influence of these self-declared quasi-states are challenged by their failure to achieve independence. This raises questions that the paper tackles: will the official nationalist discourse survive as an ideological framework that harnesses consent? How is it transformed by larger processes? Are the seeds of alternative solidarity frameworks arising?