Israellycool

Wow. You have to hand it to Omri. The boy can

write. Besides his latest response in this ongoing (and

hopefully soon-to-be-ended) Peres debate, he posted another 9 on Friday

alone.

So when he posts that having me “devote half

of [my] Wednesday posts to mocking Peres matters,” his readers could be

forgiven for thinking that I was unfairly targeting Peres with a lethal

barrage of posts. Thing is, my grand total of posts that day was 2,

with 1 containing the Peres quote.
 
But now

to my response.

Claim (1) - that Peres

places his own ego above the security of the State of Israel - is a

slander. It’s a slander that we can’t prove or disprove - we think

there’s a line somewhere in Judaism about who’s the only person who

gets to know what’s in people’s hearts, and we’re reluctant to tread on

that guy’s toes - but it’s a slander

nonetheless.

Leaving aside the fact that

slander is not the correct legal term for making a defamatory statement

in print (that would be libel), I have been very clear that my

statements about Peres’ egotism represent my opinion and the opinion of others, rather

than a statement of fact. He can question why this is my opinion, but

he cannot accuse me of slander.

Claim (2)

[Peres was being ego-maniacal

when he was speaking to the press about being an Israeli who has the

credibility because of his Noble Prize to go overseas and address the

world's leaders - ed.] is equally undecidable - although

we think that purely from a logical standpoint, it’s much easier to

make the claim that the Israeli press was wrong when they were

bemoaning to Peres how no Israeli leader is welcome in Europe than when

Peres snapped back that his Nobel Prize opens any door in any European

capital. But since motivations can’t really be proven or denied - and

more so, since they don’t really matter to this debate - we’ll bracket

them and ask about what’s really at stake here: it’s not “why would

someone [Dave] pick on Peres”. It’s “what’s going on when center-right

bloggers and readers take cheap shots at

Peres”.

I think I made it abundantly clear

in my previous post why I interpreted his comments in the way I did.

And just because people like Omri think that Shimon Peres is the great

Israeli patriot who can do no wrong, does not lend more credence to his

interpretation than mine.

Yes, in theory, claim (4) -

Dave’s equal opportunity claim - is true. Dave could have slammed

anyone else for being egotistical. But he didn’t. And that matters.

Let’s put it another way. When tens of thousands of people march in the

streets protesting Israeli checkpoints, we don’t object to their

actions because Israeli checkpoints don’t exist. Israeli checkpoints do

exist. We object because we find it suspicious that, given that there

are checkpoints all over the world, tens of thousands of human rights

activists would choose to focus on Israeli checkpoints. When someone

takes yet another predictable cheap shot at Peres’s

“self-aggrandisement”, we don’t object to the low blow because Peres is

modest. We object because we find is suspicious that, given that we’re

talking about Israeli politicians here, a center-right pro-Israel

blogger would choose to focus on Peres’s “self-aggrandisement”. Did

Bibi, Barak, Ya’alon, Livini, and Peretz all fail to pay their cell

phone bills this month? Have they disappeared from the face of the

Earth? You’d think we would have heard something.

I don’t really understand Omri’s argument

here. The Peres post was inspired by the Peres comment. I did not see

any other comments from egotistical politicians that day, which seemed

to manifest their egotism. It is not like I scoured the internet for

material to slam Peres with. I just happened to read the Jerusalem Post

article, formed my conclusions about it based on the article itself, as

well as previous information about Peres, and was inspired to post

about it. Nothing suspicious there.

But now to the

crux of Omri’s argument.

When people with

lots of readers make choices about whether write about certain things,

they’re not just throwing words into the air. Some people’s blogs are

vanity projects. Israellycool is a recognized voice and agenda-setter

in the small community of people that we call bloggers and blog

readers. Which is why having them devote half of their Wednesday posts

to mocking Peres matters. For most people on the rich (not Dave),

mocking Peres for his ego provides the same cheap thrill that DKos

denizens get whenever someone makes a crack about how Bushitler is

stupid [insert obligatory reference to people who live in their

parents' basement mocking Yale MBAs here]. The problem is that building

a political community on that foundation guarantees that it will

collapse later. Snarky cheap shots at Peres set us off because they’re

in a very real way pathological - they fulfill a certain

community-building function, where everyone uses jokes to confirm that

everyone is on the same page. It’s glib ideological back-patting as a

substitute for reasoned argument and news gathering, and the

consequence is that communities become insular and unthinking. They end

up oscillating between being very sarcastic about something everyone

agrees on and expressing what everyone agrees about with more

vehemence. It’s like a giant, extrapolated version of the New York

Times letters section, where instead of making arguments people just

repeat their ideologically derived conclusions as if they were

arguments.

So really, this is more just a request

that people stop making bad arguments about Peres. In the first place,

those arguments are untrue - he doesn’t care more about power than

about Israel, otherwise he wouldn’t stick to his (perhaps wrongheaded)

beliefs about how to achieve peace. And while we’re at it, we’ve been

having this debate on the blogosphere for a couple of years and we

still haven’t heard a compelling answer to the assertion that Sharon

would not have been able to win Intifada II during 2001-2003 without

Peres’s tireless work going from European capital to European capital

and assuring leaders that he was looking out for the humanitarian

situation (we know, we know - who cares what if the goyim will ban

Israelis from Europe? Answer: the 90percent of Israeli Jews with

passports). Taking pot shots at Peres in center-right pro-Israel forums

is not done in a vacuum: it’s historically unjustified and politically

corrosive, and people ought not do it.

In

other words, I should not post snarky things about Peres, because it just leads to me building up a community of glib, ideological back patters, insular in their thinking, and not capable of anything more than repeating ideologically derived conclusions as if they were

arguments. And for the record, Peres doesn’t care more about power than

about Israel.

I understand Omri’s concern, but I just happen to think more of my readers. I almost always offer links with my posts (including the one in question), allowing my readers to form their own conclusions. Heck, Omri himself is a reader, and he is certainly not acting like an ideological back-patter. And let’s be honest here. The risk that some people will remain insular in their thinking is hardly an argument for censorship, which is really what Omri is calling for, whether he realizes it or not (”Taking pot shots at Peres in center-right pro-Israel forums

is not done in a vacuum: it’s historically unjustified and politically

corrosive, and people ought not do it“).

But I can’t help but think that Omri’s real problem with my post is that it does not conform to Omri’s view of Peres. To Omri, Peres is a patriot who cares more about Israel than power. He says it very clearly:

So really, this is more just a request that people stop making bad arguments about Peres. In the first place, those arguments are untrue - he doesn’t care more about power than about Israel, otherwise he wouldn’t stick to his (perhaps wrongheaded) beliefs about how to achieve peace.

But to me, Omri is doing something similar to that which he warns will result from posts like mine. Instead of making any substantive argument, he seems to be repeating his ideologically derived conclusion as if it were an

argument. How does pointing to Peres sticking to his beliefs as how to achieve peace prove that “he doesn’t care more about power than about Israel”? It might show that he wants to achieve peace for Israel (something that I do not rule out), but it certainly does not preclude my conclusion - that he is an egotist who thinks he knows what is best for Israel. 

Besides, the Peres post is not the first time I criticized an Israeli political figure, yet it is the first time that Omri took exception (publicly) to something that I posted. Which makes me think that this is less a discussion about the dangers of taking pot shots at Peres in center-right pro-Israel forums, and more a discussion about Shimon Peres.

In any event, I truly hope that Omri and I can agree to disagree on this one, and continue to fight the good fight for Israel. While I have enjoyed this discussion, I can’t help but feel that my energies would be better devoted to snarky posts about Ahmadinejad and Kofi Annan.

Putin channels Borat:

President Vladimir Putin has a penchant for making pithy, acerbic, sometimes coarse comments. On Wednesday a microphone inadvertently left on during a brief appearance with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel captured his views on the sex scandal involving Israel’s president.

According to published accounts by Agence France-Presse late Wednesday and Kommersant and the Jerusalem Post on Thursday, Putin was heard saying, “Say hello to your president,” to Olmert, referring to President Moshe Katsav, who could face criminal charges that he raped and assaulted two former employees. Putin added, “He really surprised us.” The microphone was quickly turned off as reporters were ushered from the room, but the news organizations reported that Putin went on.

“We did not know he could deal with 10 women,” he said, according to the Post and Agence France-Presse accounts, apparently referring to the complaints by several women that Katsav harassed them or worse.

Kommersant’s version ‚Äî citing the remarks in Russian ‚Äî was cruder. “He turned out to be quite a powerful man,” the paper’s reporter in the official Kremlin pool, Andrei Kolesnikov, quoted Putin as saying. “He raped 10 women. I never expected it from him. He surprised all of us. We all envy him.”

What a knee-slapper. Although I guess it is better than channeling Michael Jackson.

UN peacekeeping chief French Major General Alain Pelligrini on how UNIFIL may deal with Hizbullah terrorists on the way to attack, or even in the midst of attacking, Israel:

Contrary to Israeli hopes that the new multinational force in Lebanon will engage and disarm Hizbullah, the beefed up UNIFIL will not immediately open fire on Hizbullah guerrillas if they are on their way to an attack or even in the midst of an attack on Israel, the commander of the UN peacekeeping force, Maj.-Gen. Alain Pellegrini, told The Jerusalem Post Thursday in an exclusive interview.

While the new rules of engagement set by the UN allowed the new UNIFIL force to open fire in order to implement resolution 1701, Pellegrini said he would not automatically order his troops to open fire on Hizbullah guerrillas if they were spotted on their way to the Blue Line to attack Israel. The job of the new multinational force, he said, was to assist the Lebanese army and not to disarm or engage Hizbullah or even to prevent its attacks.

According to UN Security Council resolution 1701, UNIFIL was in Lebanon to “assist the Lebanese army,” Pellegrini said, and “to inform them and advise them how they can do their job.”

“We first will observe and then inform the Lebanese army,” he said. “If we see something dangerous we will inform the Lebanese army and it will decide whether it will act independently or consider having a joint reaction together with us.”

UN peacekeeping chief French Major General Alain Pelligrini on how UNIFIL may deal with IAF flights over Lebanon:

UN peacekeeping chief in Lebanon French Major General Alain Pelligrini said on Thursday that should diplomatic efforts fail to stop Israeli flights over Lebanon, force might be considered in the future.

His comments came as the son of slain former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri urged French President Jacques Chirac on Thursday to help stop the Israel Air Force’s overflights.

Pellegrini calledd the overflights “violations [of UN resolution 1701] because you have a foreign jet crossing first the Blue Line and entering the national Lebanese airspace.”

“If the diplomatic means should not be enough, maybe it could be considered other ways, we never know,” he added.

When asked if that meant in the future UN troops might consider preventing the overflights by force, Pellegrini replied, “it could be. It could be.”

“l think that it could be considered, and it will depend on new rules of engagement drafted and decided [at UN headquarters],” he said.

Let’s make it simple:

Update: Damage control.

Omri seems a little frazzled in his response to my previous post.

We are getting a touch roughed up in the Israellycool comment section. This is in response to our very reasonable point about how Aussie Dave may have been trying a little too hard to paint Shimon Peres as more of an effete Europhile than an Israeli patriot. Dave says he likes us (although to be frank, we think we sounded a touch more sincere in our admiration for him)

Actually, I do like Omri…at least in the sense of respecting his blog posts and level of analysis. If he thinks I am being insincere, then he should have expected that I would have found him to sound insincere (since I adopted his exact tone of voice post). Granted, I repeated his turn of phrase for comedic effect, and I would have hoped Omri would have realized this since he is a regular reader of my blog and should know what to expect. If not, now he knows.

but we’re not sure that he’s being entirely forthcoming about what he said when he wrote “‘Do I not have international recognition?’ - Vice Premier Shimon Peres, showing what truly motivates him.” Because it sounded to us like he was taking the very typical cheap shot at Peres for being more motivated by a desire for international recognition than about Israeli security. Who knows, maybe we read too much into it.

No, I was being extremely forthcoming. I interpreted his statement as just another manifestation of Peres’ self-aggrandisement, and acknowledged as much. I honestly believe that he is primarily motivated by matters of ego. That is not to say that he is not a nuanced human being, with some concern for Israel, and level of altruism. I just happen to believe - based on what I have read about Peres and seen with my own eyes - that his primary motivation is to go down in the history books as someone (and to possibly bag a Hollywood starlet or two).

The better question is, if we’re right that it was the press that deserved to be mocked for their rabid inability to understand reality, rather than Peres for anything - then why take the cheap shot at Peres? If it’s true (as we assert) that what was objectively at stake was media hand-wringing about how no Israeli can go to Europe - and Peres slapped them down because he can quite easily go to Europe - then why choose to criticize Peres rather than the press?

Because I don’t think you are right, Omri. Given my view of Peres - again, based on what I know through reading about him and watching him in action - I interpreted his statement as an exercise in self-aggrandisement. A hissy-fit of sorts. This may be supported by the report from which I extracted the Peres quote:

Olmert’s associates said the statement did not necessarily mean that he would ask Peres to run as Kadima’s presidential candidate and Peres’s aides would not say whether he wanted the post. But Peres’s angry reaction to Olmert’s quote was a sign that Peres was waiting for the prime minister to ask him to run.

Sources close to Peres said he was less angered by what Olmert said and more by the way it was interpreted by the press to indicate that the prime minister considered all politicians unqualified to be president. He also was upset by a headline in Ma’ariv that Olmert intended to ask Nobel Prize winner and author Eli Wiesel to be Kadima’s candidate.

I therefore posit that my interpretation of Peres’ reaction is a valid one. No less valid than Omri’s (who is relying on the middle section highlighted in blue).

We think it’s because there’s a lot of people who don’t like Peres on the right. And more so, we think that a lot of them are far less careful than Dave about the pretexts they give for not liking Peres. Not to spoil the ending, but we think it has a lot to do with what the second commenter said - that Peres is not on Israel’s side, and the proof of that was that he compromised Israel’s security.

Omri is correct that many people do not like Peres for this reason alone, but couldn’t be more wrong in accusing me of having a pretext. My conclusions about Peres’ motivations are not based on what I consider to be his misguided decisions. I do not doubt that Peres has Israel’s interests at heart, or that he believes his way is the correct way. I just happen to believe that he thirsts for international recognition, and acknowledgement of his achievements. And this thirst supersedes all else.

And so now we have to go through this again. Check this out: Shimon Peres is a patriot. One of the great Israeli patriots. It’d be much easier for everybody if he wasn’t. It would be great if there weren’t really fundamental disagreements between really passionate and really smart people about how to deal with the genocidal threats that Israel is facing. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. There are opinions by great Israeli leaders from all over the map - are they all too blind by their love for all things European to care about Israel? For instance, other patriots who disagree with what is now the Israeli right: Abba Eban, Yitzak Rabin, and Arik Sharon. Again, anyone is free to say that any those people are either (a) traitors, (b) idiots, or (c) both. But if that’s going to be the argument let’s be explicit about it shall we? Shimon Peres founded the Israeli air force - traitor and idiot. Abba Eban bought Israel the last two days of the Six Day War - traitor and idiot. Yitzak Rabin announced the unification of Israel’s eternal capital from Mt. Scopus - traitor and idiot. Arik Sharon was Arik Melech Israel - traitor and idiot. People really want to defend that?

Omri, you have set up a strawman. Peres can be a patriot and an egomaniac. They are not mutually exclusive. Again, he is not a one-dimensional comic book character. But in my humble opinion, he has an ego the size of Mars.

And as far as specifics about Peres go, frankly this argument is getting a little old. During the first few years of Intifada II there was no significant international pressure from Europe brought to bear on the Sharon government. Now one of three things was going on: (a) the Europeans liked Sharon, (b) the Europeans agreed with Sharon, or (c) Shimon Peres was flying from capital to capital, using his credibility to assure European leaders that the Palestinian plight was being taken into account. Again, any Peres-basher is free to defend any of those options as the historically true one, but let’s be explicit about the version of the world that’s being defended.

And again - it’d be really convenient if everyone on the anti-Oslo side was good and wholesome and everyone on the pro-Oslo side was too enamored by European cocktail parties to think of Israel’s security. But the world is not here for anyone’s convenience, nor does it deign to untangle itself so that people don’t have to deal with really tough questions. Does Shimon Peres love Israel more than he loves Europe? Next week: Natan Sharansky - Zionist or closet Soviet hack? Come on. Of course Shimon Peres loves Israel more than he loves Europe. Of course he does. Anyone who says or implies otherwise has defamed one of the greatest Israeli leaders of all time. And in the process, they have committed themselves to a rather narrow version of Israeli patriotism - one which has the unfortunate side-effect of excluding most of the people that are regarded by history as Israeli patriots. Opps.

What we are not saying: we are not saying that Aussie Dave thinks the Peres (or Eban or Rabin or Sharon) is a traitor.

*Phew* Glad you cleared that up.

What we are saying: we are saying that the habit of taking anti-Peres potshots among careful rightists participated in a much less sophisticated - and frankly indefensible - political community. That political community goes all the way from people like Aussie Dave on one side through the people who say that Peres isn’t on Israel’s side because he compromised Israel’s security all the way to the people who use phrases like “the traitors of Oslo”.

Omri, you are assuming so much, and we all know what happens when you assume. I am not taking anti-Peres potshots due to membership in some political community. I have poked fun at other egotists who share many of my beliefs (see my posts on Shmuely Boteach if you don’t believe me). Anyone is fair game on Israellycool. I am an equal opportunity offender.

By the way, my view of Peres’ egotism is shared by a not insignificant amount of

people. For instance, take this quote from an article on Peres’ 80th

birthday party:

But Israeli critics saw an extravaganza whose security costs and general

disruption suggested an oversized ego and somewhat poor form at a time when

fighting continues and the ranks of poor Israelis and Palestinians are swelling.

Unless Omri is suggesting that all of these critics are members of a much less sophisticated and indefensible political community…

Do the people on the careful side of the spectrum condone what the lunatics on the other side of the spectrum are saying? Usually not. Are they providing support and succor to those lunatics by needlessly (and, let’s be honest, a little smugly and snarkily) taking potshots at a great Israeli hero? Undeniably.

And let’s be honest, Omri. Your posts are no less smug nor snarky than mine. And we love you for it.*

* That was sincere

We like Israellycool, but this is just unfair. Peres was mocking the press’s wailing about how no one in Israel had the international credibility to be President by pointing out that - more or less - they were idiots because he has massive credibility. That doesn’t mean that gaining international credibility is his goal. It means that, to the extent that helping Israel is his goal, he thinks that it’s important that Israelis know they have someone on their side who is welcome in the halls of European power.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper mounted a vigorous defence on Wednesday of his government’s Middle East policy.

 

Speaking to a B’nai Brith dinner, Harper made no apologies for his government siding with the Jewish state during this summer’s fighting between Israeli troops and Hezbollah guerrillas.

 

“When it comes to dealing with a war between Israel and a terrorist organization, this country and this government cannot and will never be neutral,” Harper said in a speech to the Jewish human rights group.

 

“This position is rooted in what we have long stood for as a country.”

 

The prime minister said he was not deterred by criticism from the opposition parties, who called the Conservative government’s unqualified support for Israel a repudiation of Canada’s traditional role in the region.

 

‚ÄúThat is simply not accurate,‚Äù he said. ‚ÄúRather than charting a new (policy) course, we are restoring Canada to its traditional and true role: Principled leadership in world affairs … a Canada that knows where it stands.‚Äù

 

And Harper said it is ultimately in Canada’s best interests to support Israel.

 

‚ÄúThose who attacked Israel and those who sponsor such attacks … seek what they and those like them have always sought ‚Äî the destruction of Israel and the destruction of the Jewish people,‚Äù he said. ‚ÄúThose who seek to destroy the Jews … will for the same reason ultimately seek to destroy us all and that my friends is why Canada‚Äôs new government has reacted with speed and spoken with clarity on recent events in the Middle East.‚Äù

“The press talks as if there is no one in politics with an international reputation. What, have I not written books and won a Nobel Prize? Do I not have international recognition?”

- Vice Premier Shimon Peres, showing what truly motivates him

The same Jewish group who gave food assistance to underprivileged Jews during Rosh Hashanah and Sukkot is now turning to help an unlikely crowd: underprivileged Muslims who will celebrate the end of the holy month of Ramadan next week with the holiday of Eid Al-Fiter.

On Tuesday, 150 members of the Jewish Reform Movement, in cooperation with the “Kavod Foundation” gathered in Jerusalem to assist with the packing of canned goods and other provisions to be delivered during the holiday to needy Muslims in East Jerusalem.

Yoav Shprank, a member of the organization told Ynet that the Kavod Foundation is working all year to help Jews, Christians, and Muslims during the holidays. As an example, the Reform movement donated 2,000 food boxes to the welfare offices, and they are also planning a substantial food donation in preparation for Christmas.

 

The director of the youth movement who participated in the packaging of the goods Yaniv Gliksman said that as a part of their activities they always speak about pluralism which is one of their most central values. According to him, there is a need to help everyone who lives in Israel because there are sectors of the population nobody tends to. Despite their wishes, the youths who participated in the packing will not take part in the actual distribution of the packages because they do not have permission to enter East Jerusalem.

In addition to East Jerusalem, the food will be distributed to Muslim communities in Jaffa, Haifa, and Shfaram, and will total 250 packages worth NIS 100 (roughly USD 43) each.

The youth movement which participated in the drive is a part of the “Kol Haneshama” community who are active in the German Settlement and Bakaa neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Rabbi Gilad Kariv of the Reform movement explains that “one of the most important values of the movement is equality, and so they work in all sectors of Israeli society. Just as we have food drives before Rosh Hashanah and Passover, it is important for us as Jews to help non-Jewish families in Israel celebrate their holidays with respect.”

Ynetnews reports:

Foxman receives highest French honor

Let me guess..The Not Too Bad for a Jew award?

Abe Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) received the French Legion of Honor from French President Jacques Chirac in a ceremony held at the Elysee Palace in Paris on Monday.
 
A statement released by the Anti Defamation league says that the award, the highest military and civilian honor given in France, “was given to Foxman for his lifelong service to combating anti-Semitism and prejudice, and for working to build bridges and understanding among nations and people.”

But the biggest joke - besides the words “French” and “honor” appearing in the same sentence - is Foxman’s response.

During his acceptance speech, Foxman thanked President Chirac and the French people for their “strength, moral courage and friendship to the Jewish state and people.”

Nice going, Abe. You just continue to kiss French tushie while targeting the real anti-Semites of the world.

Update: Here’s an example of the French showing their “strength, moral courage and friendship to the Jewish state and people”:

Commanders of the French contingent of the United Nations force in Lebanon have warned that they might have to open fire if Israel Air Force warplanes continue their overflights in Lebanon, Defense Minister Amir Peretz told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday.

It looks like Mel Gibson is not the only drunk Australian to take things out on the Jooooos.

A Jewish man was racially abused then bashed in front of his two young children by a busload of country footballers drunk after a day at the races.

Police are investigating the savage attack on Menachem Vorchheimer, 33, by players from the Ocean Grove Football Club.

About 20 footballers had just left Caulfield racecourse in a mini-bus.

Mr Vorchheimer said the men yelled “F— off Jews” and “Go the Nazis” before motioning as if they were shooting a machine gun at him and his children.

He told the Herald Sun his children, aged 6 and 3, were screaming and crying during the attack that left him with cuts and bruises to the face.

Witnesses surrounded the bus and stopped it from driving off until police arrived.

Ocean Grove Football Club president Michael Vines confirmed players from his club were involved in the incident.

“Like any sporting club at our level we expect our players to behave responsibly,” he said.

The trouble began when Mr Vorchheimer and his children were walking along Balaclava Rd, Caulfield, about 6.30pm on Saturday.

Mr Vorchheimer was wearing traditional Jewish dress including a shabbat hat and a yamulka, the skull cap worn by Jewish men.

As the minibus drove past, some of the players were laughing and yelling racist abuse.

When the bus stopped at a red light, Mr Vorchheimer went to the driver’s door.

“I wanted to find out where they were from so that . . . I could make approaches to that organisation,” he said.

But the bus driver appeared to ignore him and took off when the light turned green.

As the bus drove past, two men reached out the back window, grabbed Mr Vorchheimer’s hat and skull cap and hurled more abuse.

A driver who saw the incident pulled in front of the bus and stopped it.

Mr Vorchheimer said the men threw one of his hats out the bus window but when he asked for the other hat he was attacked.

“I was pulled toward the open window and then punched by a right hand into my left eye by a passenger on the bus. I fell back and was in enormous pain.”

Mr Vorchheimer said he felt blood running down his face as the men threw his other hat out the window.

“Meanwhile my kids are on the sidewalk crying and screaming,” he said.

He said witnesses surrounded the bus and stopped it from moving.

Mr Vorchheimer said he sat in front of the bus and said. “You’re not going ’til the police come.”

When St Kilda police arrived they took details from the footballers and witnesses. They confirmed the men had been to Caulfield races.

Mr Vorchheimer was treated at Cabrini Hospital. He said he had suffered headaches and nausea since the attack and his children had undergone counselling.

He said he had no doubt he was attacked because of his faith.

Caulfield MP Helen Shardey condemned the attack. She said the AFL needed to do more to educate footballers at all levels about behaviour.

Executive Council of Australian Jewry president Grahame Leonard said the attack was the fifth unprovoked assault on a member of the Jewish community in Victoria this year.

A worrying incident to be sure, but it is encouraging that witnesses stopped the bus from driving off until police arrived.

Update: While the football club president has apologized, the coach has decided to adopt the palestinian tactic of lying.

However club coach Matthew Sproule said Mr Vorchheimer’s hats were removed “accidentally” in a tussle through the bus window.

“The driver … did not know the person at the back had the hat. We realised the person was chasing us down the street for his hat. We pulled over and we put the hat to the side, then we got run off the road by another person who wouldn’t let us move after his hat was returned,” he told Southern Cross Radio.

“We don’t know (who threw the punch) with all the commotion that was going on at the time.

“At the time the man in question asked for an apology and we gave an apology to him and he said, ‘No, it’s 10 seconds too late. I’m calling the police.’”

6:00AM: Morning prayers, live from the Sheikh ‘Ijlin Mosque in Gaza City