Posted on 09/12/2014 10:36:29 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
Some conservatives have tried to make something of the fact that President Barack Obama routinely refers to the organization that seized the Iraqi city of Mosul and declared a caliphate not as the “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” or ISIS, but as the “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,” or ISIL. In his televised address about the group on September 10, for example, he used the acronym ISIL twenty times.
The ISIS vs. ISIL controversy first emerged, as far as I can tell, when FoxNews.com published “Obama’s Use of ISIL, not ISIS, Tells Another Story” on August 24, an analysis of the two acronyms by Liz Peek of the Fiscal Times. Peek argued:
Both describe the same murderous organization. The difference is that the Levant describes a territory far greater than simply Iraq and Syria. It’s defined as this: The Levant today consists of the island of Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and part of southern Turkey.
In other words, Levant inflates the group’s ambitions from merely two countries to significantly more. Some go even further: Phyllis Chesler tentatively adds Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf emirates.
Peek sees in this a cunning sleight of hand by Obama de-emphasizing his failures in Syria and Iraq. Others suspect him of gratuitously yanking Israel into the equation. But there is no meaningful geographic or political difference between the two translations.
In Arabic, the organization (at least until it was renamed in late June 2014) is Ad-Dawla as-Islamiya fi’l-Iraq wa’sh-Sham (الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام, known in Arabic by the acronym Da‘sh). All but the final word are simple to translate. Sham, usually translated as Greater Syria, has no exact equivalent in English. Greater Syria is an amorphous geographic and cultural term like Midwest or Middle East that lacks official boundaries. It always includes the modern states of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan, as well as the Palestinian Territories, but some also consider it to include parts of Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, and even all of Cyprus.
Inasmuch as there has never been a sovereign country called Sham, the term’s geographic meaning remains a theoretical debate. For most of the 20th century, from 1918 to 2000, politicians (such as King Abdullah I of Jordan and Hafez al-Assad of Syria) and movements (notably the Syrian Social Nationalist Party) aspired without success to create and dominate Sham. (I wrote a book on this topic, Greater Syria: The History of an Ambition, published by Oxford University Press in 1990.)
Because “Greater Syria” is heavy on the tongue, Da‘sh’s name gets simplified to “Syria.” But that name being so easily confused with the existing state of Syria which first came into existence in 1946, others choose to translate “Sham” as “Levant.” Although Levant has the distinct advantage of not being thus confused, it is an archaic word dating to the 15th century full of gentle and exotic connotations utterly inappropriate to the murderous Da‘sh. Its borders are also imprecise, referring vaguely to the countries of the eastern Mediterranean, where the sun rises (levant is French for “rising”).
In short, both translations are accurate, both are correct, and both have deficiencies — one refers to a state, the other has an archaic ring. For reasons unknown to me, the executive branch of the U.S. government adopted the ISIL nomenclature and its staff generally use this term, even though members of Congress, the media, and specialists (including me) generally prefer ISIS.
So, let’s not worry how to translate Da‘sh and concentrate our efforts instead on ridding the world of this barbaric menace.
— Daniel Pipes is the president of the Middle East Forum. © 2014 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
“But I use ISIS, because how often do you get to reference an ancient Egyptian goddess in modern political discussions?”
I think this is exactly why Obama doesn’t use it. He knows that calling their group by the name of a pagan goddess would be viewed as an insult by devout Muslims, which is why he avoids it.
That could be it, but I think Obama says “ISIL” out of sheer arrogance. Saying ISIL instead of ISIS like everyone else makes him feel superior to his American subjects. This is just part of his ego-driven personality, such as when Obama insists on pronouncing Pakistan as “POKistan”.
That is also the area covered by Greater Syria, the term ISIS itself uses in its name. al Sham.
That use of the term Syria goes back to long before Mohammed or Christ.
“A country of southwest Asia on the eastern Mediterranean coast. Ancient Syria also included Lebanon, most of present-day Israel and Jordan, and part of Iraq and Saudi Arabia.”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Syria
Why in the world would ISIS use the term “Syria” in its modern day sense of referring to the lines drawn by France and Britain and imposed on the Arab world by them? The very reason for being of ISIS is to reject and destroy those boundaries. So if they use the word Syria, they don’t mean the modern country.
In 450 BC Herodotus wrote about a ‘district of Syria, called Palaistinê”, which is approximately modern Israel. So in ancient times Israel was considered to be part of Syria.
Excellent! Applause!
Tomato, to-mah to...potato, po-tah-to...
Also known as:
I SUK
Agreed except that I don’t believe that he is “falling into the trap”. Imho, he is a muslim and he knows very well what he is saying.
Because he recognizes that the maniacs have what they perceive as claims on Jordan, Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. Sane people realize that even if such claims exist they have no validity whatsoever.
Their only valid claim to Syria and Iraq is that US policy created their existence and growth in those two countries. Is Obama implying he'd like to contribute to their growth in those other countries?
I would like to call ISIS disintegrated, but our disgusting government (and everyone elses) won't get together and kill the cancer instead of letting it spread.
Point is, words are weapons in the struggle for power...
Excellent summation.
With a straight face, Pipes ascribes an arcane and benign rationale to this administration's choice of the term ISIL--this same administration that struck the terms Islamic terror and Jihad from the lexicon, that called the Fort Hood terror attack (performed in the name of Allah)"workplace violence". And this same adminsistration that told us, just the other night, that no matter how you slice it, there's no Islam in the Islamic State of Whatever.
They have no claims to anything. However they did call themselves ISIS and they are in Syria and Iraq so it is as good a name as anything. Obama is playing terminology games just like he does when he refuses to accept they are Islamic terrorists and refuses to say we are at war with them.
I say double down and refuse to accept the premises and terminology of the enemy (Obama)
Yes I believe that as well. He think he is right and everyone else is wrong.
Well, I disagree. Seeing as how Mr. Obama has clearly, from day one, made it well known and obvious who he supports (Muslims) and who he does not support (Israel).
As well, I believe EVERY word this jackal says means something, since he and his admin have taken to creating new meanings and changing the definitions of words.
You could flip that around and say Obama is admitting Israel’s in imminent danger, which is what the Hawks, Republican and otherwise, are always screeching about. Not that they’d admit they’re on the same side.
That would be the opposite of his pattern, but creative.
Taking over the levant is a goal which would destroy Israel for the hero of Benghazi to use the term merely shows support. If you use the terminology you support it.
As meaningless as Obama’s attempt to force the use of the Islamic name for Jerusalem. I have little doubt about the goals of the caliphate, but at the same time I have little doubt who Obama will side with if “things go badly”.
I think the REAL reason Obama uses ISIL instead of ISIS is that he sent money and weapons to them in Syria when they were using the name ISIS.
It is in his best interest to call them ISIL now, so that he can continue to fool his low-information supporters (who are the only people who still think there might be a difference) in to believing his claims that he has always opposed them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.