pageok
pageok
pageok
"The Party of God":

A question from a reader prompts the following rhetorical question: how much of the sympathy that Hezbollah is receiving from the far Left would dissipate if the media referred to "Hezbollah" by its English translation "Party of God," the way it refers to Israel's "Mafdal" party as the "National Religious Party?" The fact that the United States, United Kingdom the Netherlands, Australia and Canada have designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization of course doesn't sway the far left, but could people who literally cringe at the very mention of Ralph Reed or Jerry Falwell really engage in enough cognitivie dissonance to publicly support violence on behalf of the theocratic goals of the Lebanese Party of God?

While we're at it, why not call Hamas (an acronym) by its proper English name, the "Islamic Resistance Movement"? From now on, I'm blogging them as The Party of God (Hezbollah) and The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas).

jrdroll (mail):
Step 1

how much of the sympathy that Hezbollah

Maybe "Hizb' ALLAH" makes the point

While we're at it, why not call Hamas (an acronym) by its proper English name, the "Islamic Resistance Movement"?


Yea well BusHitlterchimp might be on to something. Hey we commies have something in common with the Islamofacists.
7.19.2006 11:40pm
PatHMV (mail) (www):
Good for you! I actually began doing the same thing earlier today, alternating between Hizballah and Party of God, in a post arguing that the Israeli attacks are a just war under Catholic doctrine.

The Party of God invaded Israeli territory, killing 8 IDF soldiers and kidnapping 2 more on Wednesday, July 12. The Hizballah attack included unleashing short-range rockets on civilian targets in northern Israel:
7.19.2006 11:48pm
Robert Lyman (mail):
Of course this will make no difference. Compare the way Larry Summers talks about women to the way the "Party of God" types actually treat women. Compare how the right wing treats gays (no marriage) to how the Taliban treated gays (execution under a brick wall). Compare how Bush treats captured enemy fighters to how these lunatics do.

They already trample on EVERY issue (allegedly) important to the moonbat left. I don't see how the God issue can possibly change anything.

Fortunatly, the moonbats are a minority and there are plenty decent lefties who don't like Hezbollah.
7.20.2006 12:06am
Vovan:
Uhm, there are less people at that protest than at the average bus stop in Brooklyn. Good job showing that mass outpouring of hate.

This is just as disenguous as putting up a picture of 5 KKK supporters and then saying that they all receive plenty of support from the far right.

Left is big, no substantial left-wing blog showed any support for the Hesbullah's attack on Israel. But you would not know this since you probably never looked at them in the first place.

By the way is this left enough for you? or this?
7.20.2006 12:26am
StephenDropsInOccasionally (mail):
Sounds fair, so long as you also always give the translation of Israel: "Ruling As God".

Fairs fair...
7.20.2006 1:06am
StephenDropsInOccasionally (mail):
For instance, the following story off the Ruling As God airforce website would read:


...the Ruling As God government will release to the Party Of God a group of prisoners, among them the Sheikh Abed el Karim Obeid and Mustafa Dirani, which were kidnapped from Lebanon to be used as bargaining chips for the release of Ron Arad, a Ruling As God Airman held captive by the Party of God since 1986.


PS: I'm sure the use of the word 'kidnapped' is a typo, after all, only terrorists kidnap, and furthermore, if Israel (oops, "Ruling As God government", my mistake) kidnapped someone from Lebanon then that would mean that they would be quite happy for Lebanon to mount a sustained bombing attack throughout Israel (oops, "Ruling As God", there I go again!).

Fair's fair.

PPS: Its David's hypocracy that gets me - the region is far too convoluted and screwed up for any party or issue to be seen in terms that are as black and white as David pretends them to be.
7.20.2006 1:53am
ctb:
"Left is big, no substantial left-wing blog showed any support for the Hesbullah's attack on Israel"

I'll admit that I don't visit all the left-wing blogs, but you must not visit Daily Kos. The had a great article on how great the worlk would be if there were no Israel among others.
7.20.2006 2:51am
snuh (mail):
it is amusing, the need to see a vast conspiracy of media malelovence, when there is an obvious, quite straightforward, explanation. whereas hezbullah are a well known, indeed infamous political group, mafdal are not (well known (to non die-hard israel-palestine comment-thread partisans)). hence, no need to translate "hezbullah", as everyone knows what they stand for, whereas identifying someone with mafdal would, for a lot of people, not help in identifying their political views.

whilst i do not equate hezbullah with the nazis, this does rather remind me of those weirdos who think it's a vast liberal conspiracy that prevents "nazis" from always and everywhere being referred to as "national socialists".
7.20.2006 4:33am
RichardP:
ctb wrote:
I'll admit that I don't visit all the left-wing blogs, but you must not visit Daily Kos. The had a great article on how great the world would be if there were no Israel among others.
I find that unlikely - Daily Kos is certainly a liberal blog, but that sounds completely out of character. I just now checked the last 100 or so front page posts at Daily Kos and couldn't find any front page posts that even remotely could be considered to be advocating the dissolution of the state of Israel.
7.20.2006 4:50am
Just:
I like it.

Q. How many kids did the Ruling as God government kill today?
A. None, since those kids don't count!

Remind us again of all that's being accomplished in this Israeli slaughter of innocents.
7.20.2006 8:12am
anon252 (mail):
Just, you mean like half of Hezbollah's rockets being destroyed, the prime minister of Lebanon calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah, etc.?
7.20.2006 9:03am
David Shimm (mail):
Instead of "Party of God," I'd suggest you be even more literal and call them the "Party of Allah."
7.20.2006 9:20am
Max Hailperin (mail) (www):
Hmmm, after what happened in the House yesterday, some people might be tempted to try a variant of reversing the experiment, renaming the majority of the House Republicans as "Hezbollah." Seriously though: I'm surprised not to see any of the VC's eminent conspirators -- such as the eminent host -- blogging about the House's attempt at jurisdiction stripping.
7.20.2006 9:25am
Pepe (mail):
Shall we also start referring to al-Qaeda as "the Database"?

Kidding aside, I think it's a non-starter. As previously mentioned, there are too many entities whose names translate to "_______ of God" or "God's _______" and if you translate them all, you can't keep track of them. There are, I believe, 4 or more different groups in the Middle East operating under the name "Islamic Jihad"

Also, "National Religious Party" seems like a fair and accurate label for that entity (from what little I know of it). "Islamic Reistance Movement" and "Party of God" do not. To start calling them by these names would probably do less to scare away the theophobic and more to give them an air of respectability/credibility/nobility (which is what they want and why they chose those names).
7.20.2006 9:43am
Just:
Think long term anon252;
don't pop those champagne corks just yet.
7.20.2006 9:54am
Jeff Boghosian (mail):
As a Lefty, I think there's some truth in that. I think it preferable for the media to report more specifically about the true goals of religous groups - including those in the U.S.

"The fact that the United States, United Kingdom the Netherlands, Australia and Canada have designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization of course doesn't sway the far left,"

But this point has always bothered me. Terrorism isn't always bad - John Brown, Boston Tea Party, etc. The fact Hezbollah is a terrorist organization doesn't sway me against them. What sways me against them is, for instance, that they don't have a valid reason (IMO) to kill innocent Israeli civilians with rockets, etc. Much discussion in the U.S. is centered on terrorism=bad which I think makes the discussion pretty useless. I find the U.S.'s definition of who terrorists are slightly ridiculous.
7.20.2006 10:43am
MDJD2B (mail):
Sounds fair, so long as you also always give the translation of Israel: "Ruling As God".

Israel means "he who strives with God," and not "ruling as God. It is the name given to Jacob after he fought with an angel befroe his reunion with his breother, Esau. By extention, it was given to the nation he sired. (All according to the account in Genesis).

So Stephendropsinetc is mistaken-- apparently taken in by someone who shares his dislike of Israel and who misstated the etymology of "Israel."
7.20.2006 11:16am
JRNev (mail) (www):
Jeff Boghosian,
Dressing up like natives, dumping tea into the harbor is equivalent to strapping yourself up with explosives, nails, and rat poison and detonating yourself in a crowd hoping to kill and maim as many men, women and children as possible?

Yup, you're a lefty!
7.20.2006 11:17am
Jeff Boghosian (mail):
JRNev,
Sorry for not being clear. I don't think the two are equivalent. Killing innocent civilians is far worse than causing economic damage. (The left and far left believe that as well.) My point was that simply labeling someone a terrorist does nothing to further the conversation. We need to evaluate what reasons they have for causing terrorism and what kind of terrorism it is. The left thinks killing women and children are both wrong and terrorism.
Jeff
7.20.2006 11:33am
Steve:
Is there support for Hezbollah on the far Right? There's certainly a lot of hatred for Jews and for Israel among the white/Christian supremacist groups of the extreme Right, but I'm not sure if this translates in practice into support for terrorist groups who seek to destroy Israel.
7.20.2006 12:20pm
ctb:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/12/214150/522

"Imagine a world without Israel."
7.20.2006 1:16pm
Greedy Clerk (mail):
CTB -- that was not a front-page article. Moreover, read the comments to it and you will see that the poster who posted that diary (which anyone can post) was roundly ridiculed as a troll. Here are the tags to that article which were put on by other DKos posters: "Israel, troll diary, kook, gay, moron, anti-Semitism "
7.20.2006 1:27pm
wood turtle (mail):
I would just leave it as Hezbollah or Hamas. You are not obligated to provide translations in every article, plus it takes up more space.

After all, we in the United States do not have "United States Party of God" (Republican).
7.20.2006 1:59pm
JohnAnnArbor:

After all, we in the United States do not have "United States Party of God" (Republican)

That's idiotic.
7.20.2006 2:00pm
Lefty (mail):
I don't understand the controversy about the daily kos blurb. I didn't read it as suggesting the killing or deportation of Jews. Just a thought experiment about what would happen if a state stopped attempting to maintain a majority population of a people who, in the region, are distinctly in the minority.
Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too?

(BTW, I know a lot of lefties, and I'm the only one I know who isn't strongly pro-Israel. I just want the conflict to stop disproportionately influencing U.S. foreign policy priorities, and I don't strongly care which side "wins" or how the situation is resolved. This is not a popular view among my particular circle of lefty friends.)
7.20.2006 2:46pm
JohnAnnArbor:

and I don't strongly care which side "wins" or how the situation is resolved.

Some wish to resolve it by killing every Jew there. That wouldn't get your attention?
7.20.2006 3:31pm
ctw (mail):
"sympathy that Hezbollah is receiving from the far Left"

it isn't clear to me how the pictures on the linked post suggest support from left or right, near or far. most of the protesters appear likely to support (rightly or wrongly in this case) arabs over israelis or those perceived as oppressed over those perceived as oppressors independent of current US domestic politics. am I missing something or is this post just a characteristic attempt to create an image of non-existent extremism among those with whom the author disagrees philosophically?

it's to the point that terms like "left", "right", "liberal", "conservative" have lost most, if not all, of their meaning so that their use has become a reliable indicator of intellectual laziness. pretty discouraging in what should be a high-level forum like this.
7.20.2006 4:30pm
StephenDropsInOccasionally (mail):
MDJD2B said: Israel means "he who strives with God," and not "ruling as God.

Can't agree with that MDJD2B, this is my citation from Strongs Concordance:

Yisra'el
yis-raw-ale'
from 'sarah' (8280) and ''el' (410); he will rule as God; Jisrael, a symbolical name of Jacob; also (typically) of his posterity: --Israel.
7.20.2006 7:42pm
StephenDropsInOccasionally (mail):
MDJD2B also said: So Stephendropsinetc is mistaken-- apparently taken in by someone who shares his dislike of Israel

I don't 'dislike' Israel, and nothing I've said could be construed as such. In fact I don't have a dog in this fight.
7.20.2006 8:23pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
I don't know what Strong's Concordance is, but it's wrong. Israel means "striving (or fighting) with God". More pertinently, it was the historical name for the Jewish people, i.e., the tribes of Israel, and the geographic name of the northern Jewish kindgom of ancient times.
7.20.2006 10:40pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
Oh, and Jacob was given this name after he fought with God's messenger, an angel, in Genesis.
7.20.2006 10:41pm
Scenescent (mail):
I dunno, David, that seems kind of asinine, not to mention carries a whiff of the same old-school condescension by which native names were transliterated as, say, Three-Leaf Quick Runner or something like that, while at the same time no one would ever think to refer to a man named Adolf Miller as Noble Graingrinding Wolf. I'll accept it when I start seeing you talk about the Party of the Republic and the Party of Democracy in your domestic politics posts.
7.20.2006 11:05pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
Is it asinine when the American media refers to the Israeli "mifleget Avodah" as the "Labor party?"
7.20.2006 11:20pm
StephenDropsInOccasionally (mail):
David said: I don't know what Strong's Concordance is, but it's wrong.

Strong's Concordance in a respected and reasonably scholarly cross reference of biblical writings. It even has a wikipaedia entry:


Strong's Concordance (strictly Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible) is a concordance of the King James Bible (KJV) that was constructed under the direction of Dr. James Strong (1822-1894) and first published in 1890. Dr. Strong was Professor of exegetical theology at Drew Theological Seminary at the time. It is an exhaustive cross-reference of every word in the KJV back to the word in the original text. It included:

The 8674 Hebrew root words used in the Old Testament. (Example: Hebrew word #582 in Strong's)
The 5523 Greek root words used in the New Testament. (Example: Greek word #3056 in Strong's)
James Strong did not construct the Strongs Concordance by himself, it was constructed with the effort of more than a hundred colleagues. It has become the most widely used concordance for the King James Bible.
7.20.2006 11:32pm
StephenDropsInOccasionally (mail):
oh, for the avoidance of doubt re the above wiki extract, Strongs has been republished in updated editions since the first edition in 1890.
7.20.2006 11:37pm
Scenescent (mail):
I'd say Labor is a bad example, because not only does their name literally translate that way, but their policies, their support base, their membership in the Socialist International and other factors marked them as aligned with an international tendency that had traditionally gone by that name in Anglophonic countries.

That said, as transnational working class solidarity has largely fallen off the radar as an organizing principle in Israel and internationally, the relevance of this allegiance recedes and referring to Ha'Avoda might be more helpful in calling attention to the unique aspects of this particular party in this particular nation, but in the absence of an explicit change of name or policy, I suspect the inertia train will keep on rolling.

In any case, I would argue that more indicative of general practices would be the way in which we hear about Kadima, Likud, and Shinnui instead of "Forward", "Consolidation", or "Change".
7.21.2006 12:08am
davidbernstein (mail):
Right, use the English when it's clarifying, the foreign language when it's not. "Party of God" clarifies.
7.21.2006 12:29am
Scenescent (mail):
Yeah, okay, have fun with that, then.
7.21.2006 12:32am
Lefty (mail):

Some wish to resolve it by killing every Jew there. That wouldn't get your attention?


Not that my views are important, but to set forth an under-represented viewpoint, I'll respond: of course I don't support wholesale slaughter (of Jews or Muslims). I would rather no blood was shed. Unfortunately that doesn't appear to be possible, and if people are going to die I am indifferent to which side they are on. (If you do care, ask yourself how many kids on the "bad guys" side equal one kid on your "good" side). A nicer way to say the same thing is that I am "equally saddened no matter which side they are on."

My point that I am uninterested in the religious preferences of whoever ends up controlling an oil-free patch of western asia, no matter how culturally significant the place-names may be.

Perhaps 3 million have died in the DRC in the last decade, who knows how many in the Sudan. Quick: name the president that invited to Camp David the nations contending in the DRC, and how much military aid we gave to Kabila to help him disarm the Interahamwe? (Taking him at his word and assuming he wanted peace, as we do in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict).

To my mind, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has proven intractable, and so I'd like the U.S. to stop trying. At the very least, millions of people would have one less reason to hate us.
7.21.2006 9:57am