The Mark Elf Files This page is NOT about Mark Elf, the famous jazz musician from New York. This page is about Mark Elf, the anti-Zionist from Dagenham, who blogs and writes letters to the British press promoting hatred of Israel, its Jewish supporters, and anyone who does not share his refined sentiments on these matters. In his own words, he would “gladly see Israel, as a zionist state, wiped from the map.” This Mark Elf complains that “Jews are untouchable for political critique and humour.” To remedy his grievance, he peddles fantasies from antisemitic propaganda: Zionism as a belief in “Jewish supremacy,” the Holocaust as a Zionist-Nazi conspiracy, Israelis as latter-day Nazis, Zionist domination of the media, etc. Elf has permitted virulently antisemitic comments on his site. One contributor made this claim:          But religious movements do compromise, and have done. If they did not the Pope would be Emperor of          Europe and the Jews would still sacrifice children to Moloch (a practise which, ironically, gave the world          the word ‘holocaust’). [Typos in original - PB] Another contributor argued as follows:          The state of Israel deliberately murders children – it claims it does so in the name of all Jews. As far as I          can tell, support of Israel is presented as a religious duty. Elf has expressed similar views:          I surrender but I still don;t see what I have said that amounts to demonisation of Israel. The killing of 650          children in 5 years looks likes state policy to me and support for the state (warts and all) is often presented          as a religious commitment on the part of Jews. [Typos in original - PB] Elf insists that his site does not promote the antisemitic Blood Libel. At the same time, he maintains that “Israel has turned the killing of children into a daily ritual.” Although Elf denies that he is on the totalitarian left, he has contributed to a communist blog. He has insisted that Saddam Hussein’s annual murders numbered in the mere hundreds rather than the tens of thousands. And it seems that he is sympathetic to both the PLO and Sinn Fein/IRA. The following exchange took place after he commented on my article Jews Who Hate the Jewish State, in which his explicit justification for getting “rid” of Zionists is quoted. Elf is notorious for banning critics from his site whenever he is losing an argument, so the end of this debate was all too predictable. When I answered an abusive email from Elf with a question about his background, he started raving about threats to destroy him by “zionists... dominating, if not controlling, the whole media here.” Needless to say, Elf angrily denied that his reaction was evidence of paranoid antisemitism. I have left Elf’s spelling mistakes, etc., uncorrected. – Paul Bogdanor Update, December 7, 2006:- Anti-Zionist fanatics hate each other almost as much as they hate the rest of the human race. For some time Mark Elf has been involved in a public feud with his fellow hatemonger Gilad Atzmon. Although Elf publishes Blood Libels on his website and proclaims that Zionists control the British media, he is embarrassed by Atzmon’s support for Holocaust deniers and his comments on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The problem for Elf is that Atzmon has become a cult figure for the stormtroopers of the British ultra-left, especially the Socialist Workers Party and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. As a direct result, Elf has now broken with his communist collaborators. Of course, Elf’s prejudices will not be affected in the slightest by the fact that his former comrades would rather associate with a supporter of Holocaust deniers than with him. In the past week he has: – deplored “the pocket-lining and zionism supporting activities of various holocaust industrialists” – warned that “there is a certain state creating the impression that Jews are a bunch of bloodthirsty psychopaths or, at least apologists for the same” – and offered a stunningly ignorant excuse for the “imported antisemitic sloganising” of Hamas. Since Elf has little respect for his co-religionists, perhaps, when he next fulminates against bigotry in the anti-Zionist movement, he will recall the admonition of another faith: “first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5). – Paul Bogdanor Update, November 14, 2007:- Elf’s antisemitic outbursts continue. On his blog he now offers this comment:          The sad thing, I think, is this propensity for sheer instinctive dishonesty has become a habit of mind with          many, maybe most, Jews. It’s part of the culture now and it’ll be a hard slog shifting it. I think as          communities, the Jews are heading for a disaster thanks to this grotesque culture of deceit. I can’t imagine          what form this disaster will take but suppose it happens like a flash, in a moment. I wonder who will be          identifying as Jews after it happens. Not for the first time, it is hard to distinguish the opinions of a devoted Israel-hater from the ravings of a neo-Nazi. – Paul Bogdanor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Mark Elf’s blog Jews Sans Frontieres:- Saturday, September 02, 2006 Do they mean me? I stumbled on two articles yesterday that deal with Jewish critics of Israel. One was to denounce, the other was to applaud. The first, from the Jewish Press, is now on Norman Finkelstein’s, and many other, websites. It’s titled “Jews who hate the Jewish State” and it contains all the stupidness one usually expects Engage to direct at Jews for Justice or other Jewish critics of Israel. In fact, go have a look at Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Richard Kuper’s letter to three Engage contributors (Shalom Lappin, Eve Garrard and Norman Geras) who seem to subscribe to the maxim, “all Jews, one opinion.” Here’s what he was responding to. My reason for posting the Jewish Press article here is the rather modest one that it mentions me. I should point out that the Jewish Press is reckoned to be quite extreme even in zionist circles but then Engage is getting more and more shrill in its denunciations of Israel’s critics, especially if those critics are Jewish. So here’s the me bit of the article:           Another left-wing British Jew, Mark Elf, draws a subtle distinction: “To be rid of an Arab presence is to           engage in ethnic cleansing. To be rid of a Zionist presence is to be rid of those who would engage in, or           excuse, ethnic cleansing.” His comrades translate these principles into action: Jewish members of the           International Solidarity Movement travel to Israel in order to facilitate “the armed struggle” for the           “liberation of Palestine” – a struggle whose realities can be seen in the burning corpses and severed limbs           of their co-religionists. The quote is an accurate lift from a letter in the London Review of Books and I’m not troubled by it as it stands. Arabs are an identity group based on birthright, language and cultre, if you like, an accident of birth. Of course there is nurture involved in the language and culture aspects of the identity but very little in the way of free choice. Zionists are not born, they are made. They are people who choose to support a racist ideology or to participate in a racist project of colonial settlement and ethnic cleansing. That said, they still quoted me out of context. Here’s the letter in full:           Assault on Knowledge           As a non-Israeli anti-Zionist Jew, I am well aware of the need to distinguish between peoples and           ideologies. It is J. Behar (Letters, 24 January) who appears to be “morally unsavoury” when he equates           Edward Said’s lamenting of a “Zionist presence” at Princeton with the wish of some Jews in Israel to be           rid of an Arab presence. To be rid of an Arab presence is to engage in ethnic cleansing. To be rid of a           Zionist presence is to be rid of those who would engage in, or excuse, ethnic cleansing.           Mark Elf           Dagenham, Essex Facilitate armed struggle? At Princeton? My letter was a rejection of the conflation of peoples and ideologies and yet they tried to use the quote to do just that. The rest of the article is the same ludicrous tosh. Either trust me or read it and then trust me. The other article appears in the Tehran Times on line. It’s a gushing and patronising piece by a guy who is given to directly comparing Israel to the nazis. Read some of his stuff to see what I mean. I don’t have objections in principle to the comparison but all comparisons have their limitations and behind the comparison of Israel with nazi Germany there is a suggestion that suffering and injustice don’t count for anything unless they are like the holocaust. I think this detracts from the message that anti-zionists should be trying to get across. Anyway, here’s a chunk of the article:           Fact is, the equation of Zionism with Judaism is a well-known lie, and Zionist Jews who use it to justify           Israel’s atrocities are finding themselves going up against increasing numbers of honorable Jews who are           appalled at what is being done in the name of their religion. This schism must be suppressed at all costs,           but if some mention of it manages to get out, it must be rubbished and its authors denounced as -- you           guessed it -- “anti-Semites” or “self-hating Jews.” Ooooh!           For those intelligent enough not to buy into the official “Hezbollah is a terrorist group/Israel is the victim”           group-think, here are some recent glimpses into what some honorable Jews have had to say about Israel,           Lebanon and the Nazis: He then lists out some Jews or groups of Jews he describes as honourable. This is why I call it patronising. It does raise the spectre of conditional acceptance of Jews and sets a standard for Jews to aspire to if they are to be accepted. This dovetails rather unfortunately with the Engage allegation against JfJfP, that they are simply trying to ingratiate themselves with certain interests. Anyway here’s one item from the list of “honourable Jews.”           On July 10, 300 Jews in Great Britain took out a full-page ad in the London Times to denounce Israel’s           aggression against Lebanon. That’ll have Hirsh and co hopping about a bit. If you read the Shalom Lappin, Eve Garrard and Norman Geras open letter you will see that they make the ludicrous claim that the reason 300 hundred Jews took out an ad in the Times newspaper was to make themselves “socially acceptable.” Honestly they say that. Look:           The next time you......take out a self-abasing ad in a major newspaper designed to exhibit yourselves as           socially acceptable Jews, bear in mind that you do not speak in our name. Now to whom might we signatories be trying to make ourselves “socially acceptable?” The Tehran Times? And if criticising Israel is so socially acceptable, why did the Times have to be paid to carry the page? Why don’t they just editorialise or report in that vein or get some “socially acceptable” Jews on board the flagship of the Murdoch press? Those zionists, they’ll say anything. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You seem to be under the impression that I was writing on behalf of Engage. Actually they refused to link to my article on their blog. I’m on friendly terms with David Hirsh and several of his colleagues but most of them are left-wing non-Zionists who criticise both left-wing anti-Zionism and right-wing Zionism. As visitors to my site will quickly notice, I oppose all left-wing ideology. Your statement justifying the purging of Zionists was quite general and I assumed that it wasn’t limited to the faculty of Princeton - although a willingness to ban political opponents from universities is itself revealing. And now I will withdraw before I am banned from your comments section :-) Paul Bogdanor | Homepage | 09.02.06 - 3:37 pm | # -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Bogdanor - I must have expressed myself badly. I meant that your article contained what you would normally expect from Engage in spite of it not being Engage. I consider the main pillars of zionism to be the Law of Return and the ban on the Palestinians’ right of return. I am not aware of anyone at Engage who supports the Palestinians right of return or is opposed to the Law of Return. David Hirsh claims to be a non-zionist but he has never said where he stands on either the Law of Return or the right of return. His misrepresentation of opponents of zionism and of campaigners against Israel places him (and Engage) firmly in the zionist camp though his description of zionism as “simply Israeli patriotism” suggests his understanding isn’t quite as deep as one would expect given that he says that the main manifestation of antisemitism is anti-zionism. You may recall he also said that he lectures his daughter to the effect that “we’re not Likudniks, you know” As one who is friendly with him you may even have heard him say it to his daughter. It’s strange for a non-zionist to be directing his daughter away from one zionist faction. Also, given the Engage position on the Lebanon war (with the possible exception of Shalom Lapin), perhaps “we are all Likudniks now.” I’m not aware of other Engageniks saying whether they are or not zionists. I asked John Strawson of Engage recently if he was the same John Strawson who had stood for election to the World Zionist Congress. He hasn’t responded yet. Assuming he is the same one then I would be interested to know how his position on Israel and its zionist structure differs from that of David Hirsh. The faction he stood with (again assuming etc) was Meretz. I’m not sure how they differ morally from the zionist right. In fact I think of zionism as being an essentially right wing movement. I didn’t make a statement justifying the purging of zionists from anywhere. I merely said that to lament the presence of people who choose to support a racist ideology and project like zionism is not the same as lamenting the presence of Arabs (or Jews for that matter). Finally, I don’t ban people for making serious and honest contributions here. Perhaps you’re confusing me with Engage. Cheers Mark Elf (Levi9909) | Homepage | 09.02.06 - 7:06 pm | # -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let’s look at your explication of the letter. I hope this will be treated as a serious contribution.           I didn’t make a statement justifying the purging of zionists from anywhere. I merely said that to lament           the presence of people who choose to support a racist ideology and project like zionism is not the same as           lamenting the presence of Arabs (or Jews for that matter). I think you misunderstand Said - he is clearly distinguishing between people and institutions. He is bemoaning the fact that the institutional structure of Israel is Zionist. The presence of Zionism has meant that there are far greater number of Jews in that part of the world than there would have been otherwise. Said recognises this as a “fact on the ground” - he was clearly not calling for Israeli-Jews to be cleansed from Israel, merely for Israel to be changed into a de-Zionised state.           As a non-Israeli anti-Zionist Jew, I am well aware of the need to distinguish between peoples and           ideologies. It is J. Behar (Letters, 24 January) who appears to be “morally unsavoury” when he equates           Edward Said’s lamenting of a “Zionist presence” at Princeton with the wish of some Jews in Israel to be           rid of an Arab presence. To be rid of an Arab presence is to engage in ethnic cleansing. To be rid of a           Zionist presence is to be rid of those who would engage in, or excuse, ethnic cleansing. Now, you clearly say “to be rid of a Zionist presence is to be rid of those who would engage in, or excuse, ethnic cleansing.” Now Said would clearly acknowledge that many Israelis would sef-define as Zionists. His hope was simply that, with time, that identification would erode. But, at risk of falling foul to your low threshold for “nit-picking,” you clearly intimate that purging Israel of Zionists is less immoral than purging it of Arabs. So - would forcibly removing those who self-define as Zionists be any better than forcibly removing Arabs? Alex Stein | Homepage | 09.02.06 - 7:25 pm | # -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dagenham yuk! Was probably ok until you infested the place Ex Maven | 09.02.06 - 8:00 pm | # -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obviously I’m not an ideological spokesman for David Hirsh. But where, exactly, did he define Zionism as “simply Israeli patriotism”? Why is it strange for a left-wing non-Zionist to oppose left-wing Zionism less forcefully than right-wing Zionism? And didn’t he publicly denounce the recent war? http:// commentisfree.guardian.co..._and_wrong.html I’m not sure how to interpret the suggestion that Zionism is “an essentially right wing movement.” Zionists (and anti-Zionists) can be found on both sides of every ideological divide - socialist/capitalist, revolutionary/reactionary, liberal/conservative, atheist/fundamentalist. How can there be an open debate if you get to decide which criticisms are tolerable and ban the rest accordingly? Paul Bogdanor | Homepage | 09.02.06 - 10:37 pm | # -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alex - I’ll treat the comment as acceptable. No promises as to seriousness though. My letter was a response to a letter from a chap called Behar who said that Edward Said was being as “morally unsavoury” with regard to the zionist presence at Princeton as some Jews in Israel are with regard to their wish to be “rid of ‘the Arab presence.’” Here’s the guy’s letter:           From J. Behar           In the piece in which he writes about his friend Ibrahim Abu-Lughod (LRB, 13 December) Edward Said           recalls as an undergraduate at Princeton lamenting “the Zionist presence” there. In apparently wishing it           away, he appears as morally unsavoury as some Jews in Israel who would like nothing better than to be           rid of “the Arab presence.” This doesn’t seem to have occurred to him. There’s far more wrong with this Behar’s letter than the fact that he wasn’t comparing like with like. He failed to take into account that zionists are in a position to inflict their wish on the Arabs whereas whatever Said wanted he was in no position to enforce. Also, according to the guys letter, Said was only, in that instance, referring to zionists at Princeton. So the contrast is even more marked. That said, I was merely pointing out, as I have said, that zionists are a group of choice and Arabs are a group by birth so the two do not compare. And that, yes, to want to be rid of racists is preferrable to wanting to be rid of the victims of racism. My understanding of Said (or not) didn’t enter into it up to that point because I wasn’t addressing anything Said had said. I have also said that I have not suggested purging anyone from anywhere and it is not what I believe in. But as I just said, being rid of people who subscribe to or participate in a racist project of ethnic cleansing (in this case, zionists) is preferrable to being rid of a people simply for being born into the wrong society. But my basic belief is the same as Dr Assam Tamimi, let the zionists dream their dreams of a Jewish state and let Islamists dream their dreams of an Islamic one. In reality I’d like a democratic secular state (or even two!) where each are free and equal to dream their dreams no matter how pleasant or repugnant. Paul Bogdanor - I don’t recall exactly where David Hirsh said that and I can’t be bothered to check. Perhaps you could ask him or ask him how he defines zionism. I really don’t want to read his stupid Cif article. I recognise it so maybe I read it already but I can’t recall what his point (if any) was. Could you simply quote the relevant point? My assumption of Engage supporting the war is based on what I have seen on their site. They tend to the view that Nasrallah’s speeches are more important than Israel’s atrocities. David Hirsh often says “Engage supports this” or “Engage opposes that” - I’m paraphrasing. So I presume they work on some kind of consensus basis. Regarding where to place zionism on the political spectrum, if we take the left as tending towards equality and the right as tending away from it then zionism as a belief in Jewish supremacy in all or most of Palestine is an essentially right wing ideology. You might speak of left zionists wanting less territory and tolerating more gentiles under zionist rule than the right but that does not put the zionist left on the left of the general political spectrum. Obviously these categories are highly subjective but if you define the left as believing in equality regardless of ethno-religious background, then zionism is clearly on the right. Re - your last line, what do you mean which “criticisms are tolerable?” See Ex Maven’s “criticism” above. Is that sort of thing tolerated in Jewish Press? That Ex Maven guy, using various different names, used to post similar nonsense several times a day until I banned him and some of his friends for doing the same thing. Even Alexandra Simonon (the Engage Project Manager) joined in using the name “Alf Green.” Engage claims to only allow serious contributions to debate and yet they allow all manner of abuse to be directed at their detractors whilst banning serious comment and queries. In fairness to them they may have relaxed that rule recently. I allowed that Ex Maven comment through just to show the kind of thing that gets banned. I wouldn’t normally have allowed it through. Mark Elf (Levi9909) | Homepage | 09.03.06 - 2:34 am | # -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I do find it interesting that you denounce David Hirsh on the basis of alleged quotations for which you have no source. As for Lebanon, Hirsh wrote unequivocally: “Goldberg is right to condemn Israel for the pointless and bloody war in which it is currently engaged.” I’m intrigued by your definition of “the left as tending towards equality and the right as tending away from it.” This would mean that Saint-Simon (one of the founders of modern racism), Marx (who defended slavery and imperialism), Engels (who wanted to annihilate “reactionary” peoples), Proudhon (who suggested the extermination of Jews), H. G. Wells (who demanded the killing of all non-whites) and George Bernard Shaw (who proposed to murder anyone who did not fit into the future socialist society) were all right-wing! The same must be true of the Fabian socialists (among the major champions of pre-war eugenics) and the South African communists (with their early slogan: “Workers of the world unite - for a white South Africa”)! I know of only one supposed Zionist who advocated anything close to “Jewish supremacy.” He was banned from the Knesset and his movement is now an illegal terrorist organisation in Israel. It is one thing to ban abuse, obscenity and hate speech from your site. It is something else to ban any opposing view that fails to meet your definition of “serious and honest.” Paul Bogdanor | Homepage | 09.03.06 - 6:04 pm | # -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, looks like Paul is just as intellectually dishonest as the usual riff-raff. Not that I’m surprised. Anonymous | 09.03.06 - 11:48 pm | # -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Bogdanor - as you can see I have a low seriousness threshold where comments are concerned. I let you through don’t I? I didn’t say I have no source for David Hirsh saying that zionism is “simply Israeli patriotism.” I am saying I can’t be bothered to find it. He said it. You’re friendly with him. Ask him if he said it. If he has forgotten saying it, then ask him what he understands zionism to be. He doesn’t talk to me. While you’re at it, what do you understand zionism to be? Of all the historical figures you name above. I am only familiar with Marx and Engels and I know they have both made racist statements in common with most people of their time. Herzl made many antisemitic statements as did many early (and even current) zionists. The system they (Marx and Engels) proposed was not a racist system, like say Israel’s. Your citing of Marx’s approval of slavery is completely (and dishonestly) out of context (no surprises there). He refers to each epoch as being an essential stage of human history. He sounds laudatory of the bourgeoisie’s “revolutionary role.” That doesn’t make him an advocate of bourgeois rule for eternity. The left is for equality and that’s that. If someone from the left advocates ethno-religious segregation or supremacy, as zionists do, then rhey are advocating a right wing position. I’m guessing you are referring to Meir Kahane re “Jewish supremacy.” I didn’t know he used that expression. I remember him saying that Judaism and Zionism are the same and that both are racist. I know the Israeli President (I think it was Herzog) at the time banned him, he said, for being racist. I would say that all zionists support Jewish supremacy as systemised in Israel and many want more Jewish supremacy with regard to land occupation and to the “demographic ratio.” Kahabe’s offence was that he was embarrassingly open about his racism. There have been Knesset members and even ministers who avocate the same policies that Kahane did. He was barred from the Knesset for his openness, not his racist politics. It’s curious that you didn’t name Kahane. Perhaps you meant someone else. I notice that Jewish Press, for whom you write, published Kahane’s writing, seemingly approvingly. Do you approve of Kahane? And if so how? and if not what, specifically, do you disagree with. Re your last line (to me anyway), I showed you an example of the kind of comments that get banned. I do also ban people for dishonesty. I’m not dishonest on here so I don’t see why I should tolerate dishonesty in others. Of course I can determine who is being dishonest when I am being accused of having said things that I know I haven’t said, especially when all either of us (or anyone else) has to do to check is scroll up. I hope you understand the position now, Mr Bogdanor, only you seem to be putting more creative energy into your posts. You’ll be wasting your time if you’re trying to waste my time. When someone is being disingenuous, psrticularly with bogus inferrences, I usually spot it quite early on, like your last post. Usually, I hit delete at that point but I found it so intriguing that you troubled to quote me in your stupid article. By all means comment again. I put a question or two to you, but it is for me to decide if you are serious or not. My mind’s made up on the honesty bit. Mark Elf (Levi9909) | Homepage | 09.04.06 - 12:00 am | # -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was wondering how long it would take before you started threatening to ban me... I asked David Hirsh whether he had used the disputed phrase: he categorically denied it. So you should either renounce this quotation or produce a source; otherwise you may have to ban yourself from your own blog for being “dishonest” :-) I didn’t think to ask how David defines Zionism but I do know that he doesn’t consider himself to be a Zionist in any sense of the term. My definition of Zionism is, quite simply, support for a Jewish homeland in Israel with a Right of Return for Jews. In common with virtually all Zionists I see nothing in this definition that precludes full democratic rights for non-Jews. I’m surprised that you, as a self-described leftist, are unfamiliar with Saint-Simon (one of the first socialists) or Proudhon (one of the major anarchist theoreticians). With regard to Marx, here are his words (with one alteration, explained below):-           As for [sex trafficking], there is no need for me to speak of its bad aspects. The only thing requiring           explanation is the good side of [sex trafficking]... Direct [sex trafficking] is as much the pivot upon which           our present-day industrialism turns as are machinery, credit, etc. ... [Sex trafficking] is therefore an           economic category of paramount importance. (Letter to Annenkov, December 28, 1846) To help readers evaluate his views, I replaced the word “slavery” with the contemporary crime of “sex trafficking.” Personally, I don’t think that either slavery or sex trafficking ever had a “good side.” As for leftist “egalitarianism,” I need only cite the following passage, written by Engels and published by Marx:-           All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary           world storm... these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-           revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character... The next           world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and           dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward. (Neue Rheinische           Zeitung, January 13, 1849) Admittedly these passages are from an impeccably right-wing propaganda site:- http://www.marxists.org/archive/...rs/ 46_12_28.htm http://www.marxists.org/archive/.../1849/01/ 13.htm Please explain the “egalitarian” aspects of doctrines concerning the “good side” of slavery or the “step forward” of annihilating entire classes and peoples. Kahane’s position, as I understand it, was that he was not a racist but a “religionist”: he believed that Jews were superior to non-Jews, but that anyone could become a Jew. (This position is, of course, the mirror image of today’s jihadist terrorists.) He was editor of The Jewish Press before he became a political activist and then a dangerous fundamentalist fanatic. As for troubling to quote you in my “stupid article,” be assured that I would have mentioned you in my equally provocative book, had I been aware of your writings at the time. If you like, I can discuss you in the sequel - but only if you can persuade me that you are “serious and honest.” Paul Bogdanor | Homepage | 09.04.06 - 2:33 am | # -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Bogdanor - You are thoroughly, deliberately and manifestly dishonest. Even if Hirsh didn’t ever say what I attributed to him that doesn’t make me dishonest but he did say it or something so similar (like Israeli nationalism) as to make no difference. You on the other hand simply make things up as you go along. The last time I tried to check the original Engage blog, all the links were broken. For all I know Hirsh has been covering his tracks. He certainly comes out with enough embarrassing tosh to want to do so. It surprises me that he realises it though because he has to be the biggest buffoon in your movement. Regarding your definition of zionism, non-Jews (and even Jews) do not have the right to campaign for equality in Israeli elections. And non-Jews who have been ethnically cleansed do not have the right of return so there is clearly discrimination against them. The right of “return” for Jews is a misnomer since most of the Jews who have exercised this “right” have not come from there in the first place and could not establish descent from anyone who has come from there, unlike the banned Palestinians. I know I’m wasting time putting questions to a liar like yourself but could you ask David Hirsh if he disagrees with your position on this? Do that before you come back again. Thanks. I don’t describe myself as a leftist. To be fair you’re not being dishonest as far as that goes. A lot of people make that mistake. You have though, and this time dishonestly, quoted Marx and Engels out of context. They advocated socialism and communism. They described capitalism as an essential (and in comparison to previous orders) revolutionary phase that society would go through. I meant that I am only familiar with the work of Marx and Engels. And then, as it happens, I’m not that familiar with it. Not that I believe that what people wrote in previous centuries is relevant to the political spectrum today. Re Kahane - you are still being dishonest by evasion this time. You haven’t said who you were referring to with regard to advocating “Jewish supremacy.” I don’t think the President who banned Kahane invoked the concept of “Jewish supremacy.” Perhaps the idea of a zionist President banning someone for racism was too much of an irony in the first place. I don’t need to persuade you that I am “serious and honest.” I like a laugh sometimes it’s true but you know I’m honest and your dishonesty can’t be gainsaid. Let me be clear. You are deliberate liar. You make things up, you lift quotes out of context, which is how you came to my attention in the first place and you evade any point or question you find inconvenient. You can try commenting again but if you dishonestly evade my questions again or points again or go off on lots of false inferences again I either won’t approve the comment or I won’t bother to read it. I often think zionists think it’s their patriotic duty to waste the time of their detractors. You seem to be an example of that. This began because you wrote a ludicrous article that happened to dishonestly quote me out of context. Admit it. Take your medicine. If you don’t want criticism don’t be such a liar and fool. Anyway, there are some outstanding questions for you to address before you come back again. Try not to lie or evade. I know as a zionist you find that difficult to impossible but I have to raise the standard here. Oh, and be a love, and ask Hirsh to post copies of the original blog somewhere rather than hiding them. I’m sure that’s where he said his “Israeli patriotism” thing. But even if he didn’t he has some real gems about my friend Tony Greenstein. And he is definitely a zionist by your own definition, even avoiding, as you did, the question of the Palestinian right of retrun. So no more lies, no more evasions and you’re welcome back. See, I’ve even dropped my seriousness clause because then you’d have no chance. Thanks Mark Elf (Levi9909) | Homepage | 09.04.06 - 7:52 am | # -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree that you like a laugh. You certainly have a sense of humour. Your latest comment accuses me of lying or dishonesty more than half a dozen times, but consider the following:- a) You quoted a phrase from David Hirsh that he categorically denies using and for which you have no source. You now suggest that the disputed phrase can be found on the original Engage blog, which is no longer active; have you never heard of Google Cache? b) You suggested that Engage had adopted Likud-style positions on the recent war. I then proved that David Hirsh had publicly condemned the war. c) You conceded that I had quoted your words on being rid of Zionists precisely but claimed that they were being taken out of context. Your explanation is that the phrase “be rid of a Zionist presence” does not mean purging the Zionist presence but rather lamenting the presence of Zionists! d) You deny that you describe yourself as a leftist, but you blog for Lenin’s Tomb, which only accepts leftist bloggers (in fairness, it does link to far-right websites like antiwar.com), and in this exchange you repeatedly attacked Zionism as inherently right-wing (if only this were so!) e) You now deny that “what people wrote in previous centuries is relevant to the political spectrum today” - and this in reference to Marx and Engels, the most influential leftist thinkers of all time! I wonder if your Marxist readers would agree that Marx and Engels are irrelevant to the definition of contemporary leftism. David Hirsh is not part of my movement (whatever that means). And I find it bizarre that you want me to question David on your behalf. Why not simply email him directly? Because you can’t restrain yourself from throwing personal abuse at him? And this in spite of the fact that he is a very nice fellow (for a leftist)? Regarding Zionism you make three points - one false and the others indefensible:- 1) Whatever gave you the idea that non-Jews are forbidden to campaign for equality in Israeli elections? Anti-Zionist and Palestinian nationalist parties (e.g. Hadash, Balad, Ra’am-Ta’al) have always been represented in the Knesset. 2) Your argument about denial of the Right of Return would delegitimise almost every democratic country that has ever experienced a conflict on its own territory. To name just a few: post-war Poland and Czechoslovakia (millions of German refugees), post-partition India (millions of Muslim refugees), post-communist Armenia (Azeri refugees) and Croatia (Serb refugees) - and so on, and on. 3) Your objection to Israel’s Law of Return would disqualify multiple democratic countries with identical laws for diaspora communities, including Armenia, Germany, Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine! I thought it was obvious that I was referring to Kahane as an advocate of “Jewish supremacy.” Once again you are simply misinformed about Israel: Kahane was not banned by Herzog but by the Knesset, which passed a law excluding from elections any party that denied the democratic nature of the state. In other words, Kahane was banned precisely because Zionists could not accept his Jewish supremacism. Given the litany of errors and misstatements in your latest reply, it is tempting to reciprocate the long list of epithets you are throwing at me (dishonest, liar, fool, etc.) and at David Hirsh (buffoon), but I would not want to have to ban you from your own website... Assuming that I am still welcome here, I will answer the defenders of socialism and communism in a subsequent post. Paul Bogdanor | Homepage | 09.04.06 - 5:33 pm | # -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Bogdanor - you are deliberately wasting my time now. Dr Hirsh categorically denies that the antisemitism smear is ever used against people for simply criticising Israel and yet that’s precisely what the Engage site exists for. He even wrote an essay on Cif on how the antisemitism smear is never used to undermine critics of Israel only to accuse someone of blood libel for saying that Israel kills children within the comments to the same article. I was starting to doubt whether he actually said that “Israeli patriotism” thing but now I’m convinced he said it or something so similar as to make no difference. I think it’s a fair assumption not believe anything until its been categorically denied by David Hirsh. (I’m paraphrasing someone, I know). I’ve heard of google cache but I’m only responding to you off the top of my head. Dr Hirsh said that the war was “pointless and bloody.” Was he condemning Israel’s role in it? I don’t know. I do know that he said that on 9/8/2006. I think the war began on 12/7/2006 or thereabouts. So he described it as “pointless and bloody” when the zionist “left” began to buckle after having supported Israel’s role in the war. Sorry to keep going on about your manifest dishonesty but it is bewildering that you know readers know you are a liar but you persist and even make your lies even sillier. What’s the point? Is it so that other zionists will do the same? Never mind. Lamenting the presence of a thing does not mean advocating a purge. Even your logic stinks. By “your movement” I mean the zionist movement. You have a book out specially to smear Jewish critics of Israel. He runs a site specially to smear all critics of Israel. He and his colleagues are becoming more shrill against Jewish critics. I am guessing that you both feel that if you can undermine the Jewish critics and opponents of Israel you can then go back to accusing the gentile critics of Israel of antisemitism. I’m to the left of the zionist movement on the question of ethno-religious equality and Lenin has me contribute to his blog on the basis of my anti-zionism. I don’t have very strong opinions on economic policy. And anyway, you said I describe myself as a leftist. I don’t. Ok, to avoid repetition I won’t call you a liar every time I catch you lying. Your “point” about Marx and Engels has already been dealt with. You either lifted what they said out of context or you ran with early writings that they later retracted. And the influence of their writing (as far as I understand it) is in the analysis of capitalism and the proposals for socialism. Everything you wrote was deliberately misleading and I stand by what I said. I don’t want you to question Dr Hirsh on my behalf. If you want to know where he stands on this or that, ask him. I know enough about him not to need to ask him anything. On zionism and the State of Israel - Parties are not allowed to campaign against Jewish supremacy (referred to by the courts as the Jewish nature - or character of the state). It’s the law and some cases that give me that idea. There is no other country (democratic or otherwise) in the world whose ethno-religious majority could be outnumbered by returning refugees or their immediate descendants. None of the countries you name have the ethno-religious majority they have thanks to ethnic cleansing. Israel is unique in that respect. Also, those countries do not have a law inviting people from around the world to live in place of the victims of ethnic cleansing. Many countries have laws allowing people with one grandparent the right to return and to take out citizenship. If Israel had such a law then the Palestinians would have an automatic right of return and even many Israelis would be denied citizenship. Personally, I don’t advocate that latter measure. But Israel’s law of return (for Jews) and bar on the Palestinians’ returning is the diametric opposite of the citizenship laws of other countries regarding ones grandparents. It’s hard to believe that that wasn’t a deliberate mistake by you. Re - Kahane [...] Whether it was the President being an outrageous hypocrite or the Knesset, Israel does by stealth much of what he openly advocated and it has had open advocates of ethnic cleansing in the cabinet. Every mistake you have made has been deliberate. And you forgot to whinge about getting banned. Mark Elf | Homepage | 09.04.06 - 8:14 pm | # -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was wondering whether you’d admit to your mistakes or throw out more abuse. By now it’s pretty clear to any objective reader who is misstating the facts, so I just have to tidy up a few loose ends before answering the communists later tonight. I’m delighted that you’re now starting to doubt the veracity of your patriotism quotation. Please tell us how many other “quotations” on your site can’t be verified because they’re “off the top of my head.” Now as to your ongoing “evasions” (to use your own term):- i) You previously accused Engage of adopting Likud-style positions on the recent war. You now concede that Hirsh condemned it, but perhaps not because of “Israel’s role.” Actually he wrote that “the cost in Lebanese lives and in human suffering is too high” and that “Goldberg is right to condemn Israel for the pointless and bloody war in which it is currently engaged.” But you would have known this if you had bothered to read his writings before speculating about his views! ii) “Lamenting the presence of a thing does not mean advocating a purge.” Recall that your original statement was: “To be rid of a Zionist presence is to be rid of those who would engage in, or excuse, ethnic cleansing” (at Princeton?). But I can understand why, in answer to my initial criticism, you want to redefine being “rid” of a Zionist presence - with its connotations of purging, etc. - as merely “lamenting” the presence of Zionists. iii) If “my movement” is the “zionist movement,” then I’ve already made it clear that Hirsh does not consider himself a member of that movement. If you want to attribute Zionist sympathies to him against his will, then you’re in no position to object when I attribute leftist sympathies to you based on your admitted readiness to blog alongside Marxist-Leninists. That Hirsh and I both deplore those Jews (and non-Jews) who justify suicide bombings, support Hezbollah, defend neo-Nazis, etc., does not mean that we belong to the same “movement.” iv) Previously you wrote: “I’m wasting time putting questions to a liar like yourself but could you ask David Hirsh if he disagrees with your position on this? Do that before you come back again. Thanks.” Now you say: “I don’t want you to question Dr Hirsh on my behalf.” Presumably you will again call me a “liar” for pointing to this example of doublespeak straight from Orwell. I’ll discuss Marx and Engels in my reply to your communist readers. Here I’ll just say that it’s a rather lame defence to concede that they started out as genocidal monsters while insisting that they later became an inspiration to humanity. But more on this later. On Zionism:- 1) “Parties are not allowed to campaign against Jewish supremacy (referred to by the courts as the Jewish nature - or character of the state).” I’ve already named several political parties in the Knesset that campaign against “the Jewish nature” of the state! 2) There is “no other country... whose ethno-religious majority could be outnumbered by returning refugees or their immediate descendants.” Interesting. Does this mean that if Zionist hopes had been realised and all Diaspora Jews had made aliyah, then you’d acknowledge Israel’s democratic status because Jews could no longer be outnumbered by returning refugees and their descendants? 3) Again you misstate the facts about so-called repatriation laws for diaspora communities. Most of the democratic countries that I named offer full citizenship to members of the national group whether or not their grandparents had ever lived there. E.g. The Lithuanian constitution proclaims: “Everyone who is ethnically Lithuanian has the right to settle in Lithuania.” Another time-wasting “deliberate mistake”? On Kahane, you no longer even deny that all - and I mean all - of your factual statements were completely wrong! [...] But then again, such “mistakes” are inevitable when someone boasts of his willingness to denounce other people’s writings without even reading them. My only reason for posting on your site was to correct your apparent misapprehension that I was connected with Engage. My comment about your habit of banning people seems to have struck a nerve. Let me just pose one question: would you allow your critics to reciprocate on your site the terms you repeatedly employ against them - “liar,” “dishonest,” “fool,” “buffoon,” etc.? Please feel free to give examples. Paul Bogdanor | Homepage | 09.04.06 - 9:55 pm | # -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NB: Elf allowed this message for a few moments, then censored all but paragraph (iv), having repeatedly insinuated that he would not ban me. He then posted this comment – Paul Bogdanor. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I deleted the dross to cut to the chase as finally you nearly got something right. I wanted you to say how he defined zionism that differed significantly from “simply Israeli patriotism.” But then, I was right, you couldn’t and nor could he. Thanks for reminding me that I’d set a precondition. You didn’t fulfil it and still I let you come back. By the way, that ex Maven chap says you won the argument. Mazel tov! Mark Elf | Homepage | 09.04.06 - 10:31 pm | # -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NB: I then sent Elf the first email quoted below. After a quick exchange of emails he posted the following entry on his blog. Apparently, by questioning him about his background (to confirm that he was not the famous jazz musician from New York) I was threatening him on behalf of “zionists... dominating, if not controlling, the whole media here” (and Heaven forbid that anyone call this antisemitic). The paranoia of this suggestion is matched only by the nastiness of the fabrication about “trading on his father’s name” – Paul Bogdanor. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Mark Elf’s blog Jews Sans Frontieres:- Monday, September 04, 2006 Is Paul Bogdanor threatening me? Goodness! This is scary stuff. I think someone’s trying to threaten me. I won’t bore you too much (I hope) with details of a “discussion” in the comments here. It all began when I tracked back and found a reference to me in an on-line article which was an extract from a book about Jews who criticise Israel. A small book maybe; or, who knows? a heavy tome. Check out the post. Well, because he’s the son of someone who’s fairly famous here in the UK, I put up with him for a while and then I got bored with it and deleted most of his latest lengthy comment to deal with something he had actually got right. There’s no need for detail here and he promises to post the whole shebang on to his own website some time so I’ll direct you there when he does. If I see it that is. Well, you know how zionists think that, in spite of dominating, if not controlling, the whole media here, each zionist has a right to be heard. He emailed me to complain that I had cut down his post. He actually said that I had banned him.           I wondered how long it would take you to ban me... Unfortunately for you, I’ve saved the entire           exchange, which I can now post on my site, without censorship.           A friend advised me that in any exchange you tend to get bored as soon as you think you’re losing and           promptly ban your opponent - usually without alerting your readers to the fact. I was hoping that he was           wrong about you...           Am I correct in assuming that there’s no longer any point in replying to the communist apologists in this           exchange? This is one important guy, after all, he has a famous dad. As it happens he could have commented and I was sure I let everyone know if I banned someone’s comments. But anyway, being a smartarse and wanting to go to bed I simply responded:           You’ve got a friend? And he came back and said:           Alas, you’re not willing to defend your own character - even in private.           I notice that you ignore my query about whether I’ll be allowed to reply on communism.           Is it true that you’re a council employee in Dagenham or somewhere similar? Now all I know about this Paul Bogdanor guy is that his dad is famous (Paul gets an entry in Wikipedia for that) and that he is associated with David Howrowitz’s FrontPageMag site. That’s it. I don’t want to know any more. Except one thing. Why is this son of a celeb in the UK asking me questions about where I live and who I work for? This is a clear attempt at intimidation. I hope readers who have hung in this far realise that. Now, what do zionists do? You know, those respectable types who would n’t say “boo” to a goose. Do they complain as never before or do they accuse me of being a “conspiracy theorist” as so many do even when the accused is acting alone and when the “theory” is a fact? Ok, to conclude, this Paul Bogdanor guy is threatening me. Why else would he be asking questions about where I live and work? His illustrious father must be proud of him. Personally I think he’s a low life trading on his father’s name. Now then, to bed. UPDATE: Apparently the celebrity’s son wasn’t trying to intimidate me:           I’m glad you made it clear that you banned me.           Actually my question about you was not a “threat” (more anti-Zionist paranoia and conspiracy theories -           perhaps I’m planning to summon the Board of Deputies or the ADL!) but precisely that - a question asked           out of curiosity, prompted by comments from other critics banned from your site.           I’m completing my own page on our exchange, which I’ll send to you when ready... Some masterpiece I have to wait for. He logged all that he and I wrote but it’s not quite ready. He just took time out to let me know that he knows where I live and roughly where I work. He was intimidating me but I was supposed to be so intimidated I wouldn’t mention it on my site. And didn’t I say that he would accuse me of a conspiracy theory for saying this? Even David Hirsh wouldn’t stoop to that. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Just how malevolent is Mark Elf? We have already seen that he vilifies other Jews as ritual child-murderers and bloodthirsty psychopaths. Even so, the scurrility of his hate message to a fellow anti-Zionist is hard to fathom. I suspect that we have yet to see him at his worst – Paul Bogdanor.