Disturbing Pictures From Tahrir Square

Amid the euphoria surrounding the success of the new Egyptian revolution, some disturbing images surface.

 

These pictures were taken today by my friend in Tahrir Square, Cairo. These images are the exception, not the rule, but they are disturbing nonetheless.

*These pictures may NOT be reposted or reproduced without permission in writing.*

Mubarak as a hasid, Mubarak as Moshe Dayan, Mubarak as Hitler:

 

Comments

[state of disgust]

Gee what a surprise. Not everyone in Egypt loves Israel. Frankly, I don't care if they love us, as long as they respect tzahal.

A cold peace is better then a hot war anytime. Let's hope the Egyptian Army realizes that, and remembers the last war with the Egyptian 3rd Army surrounded by Israelis.

[WoolSilkCotton]

I guess the Republican Party has a branch there.

[William Burns]

Why is the Mubarak as Hitler image supposed to be disturbing?

[Adam Neira]

The anti-Jewish/Israeli poster are concerning but I believe the vast majority of Egyptians do not want war with Israel or any other nation. This younger generation is not as easy to manipulate as those of the Nasser era. The Egyptian Actor of "The Kite Runner" fame, 31 y.o. Khalid Abdalla spoke eloquently from the square today on the BBC World Service. (Who by the way are doing the best job at the moment of providing balance, insightful coverage and fairness on the goings on in the region.)

A common chant of the children in Tahrir Square fourteen hours ago was "Hold your head up high. We are Egyptians". An upcoming democratic election will be the first time in 5,000 years the Land of the Pharaohs will witness a free election of a government. So yes these are momentous times.

The Israelis must be careful. A conditioned knee-jerk response with bluster mixed with an almost obligatory need to control all relationships around them will prove counterproductive. Even normally bold and blunt Ehud Barak was very muted and almost gentle in his brief interview with the media whilst meeting in New York with UN's Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

Trustbuilding has a supernatural quality to it. Sometimes you just must trust others and believe that the better side of human nature will prevail. The divine can fill the space between people if given a chance. Many Israelis and Jews have trouble trusting others. They are like every other tribe on the Planet. All the tribes should try and remember that we are all G-d's children. A song line comes to mind...

"No you can't fool the children of a revolution".

Prayers for the good people of Egypt.

P.S. I would like to visit the Sinai and swim in the Red Sea again someday in the future. A visit to the pyramids would also be fun. So my hopes and prayers are partly selfish.

[saramaimon]

Egypt will not break the peace treaty with Israel. They will, however, support the Gazans.

Which may work out ok in the long run if in includes supporting democratic rule in Gaza.

[ah-pee-chorus]

a "democratic" egypt will not bode well for individual rights or world peace.
here are some findings from a recent poll there..

Is it good that Islam plays a large role in politics? 95 per cent said “yes” and 2 per cent “bad.”
Is Islam’s influence in politics positive or negative? 85 per cent said “positive,” 2 per cent said “negative.”
How much of a role does Islam play in Egyptian politics now? 48 per cent said “large” and 49 per cent said “small.”
Should men and women be segregated in the workplace? 54 per cent said “yes” and 44 per cent “no.”
Should adulterers be stoned? 82 per cent said “yes.”
Should apostates from Islam face the death penalty? 84 per cent said “yes.”
http://tribune.com.pk/story/113171/egyptians-want-more-islam-in-politics-poll/

so 95% think its good if islam plays a "large" role in politics and 49% think islam currently does not play a large role. this 49% would seem , therefore, to want a larger islamic role in govt.
and when 5 of 6 egyptians think people should be KILLED for denying islam, you can see where they are likely headed.

[WoolSilkCotton]

APC, I fear a repeat of Iran, exchanging the Shah for the Ayatollah.

[jay]

I agree with Adam on this one. Only time will tell what the outcome of the Egyptian revolution will be. If the USA and Israel remain calm and avoid belligerent statements, it's far more likely that a moderate government will emerge. The USA overthrew the democratically elected gov't of Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah. His repressive polices ultimately led to blowback against the USA. It's up to our gov't to see that the same doesn't happen in Egypt

[ah-pee-chorus]

WSC- i'm not sure the people will put up with an iranian model where the ayatollahs wield veto power over all laws. i think a more likely scenario is a turkey type situation. there, the electorate wants to be more islamic but the army , a mostly secular institution prevents fundamentalism by overthrowing the govt. as needed. the question in egypt is whether the army is as secular-minded as it is in turkey. if its not, a quasi theocracy is quite probable.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Apologies to the Bangles:

All the old paintings on the signs
They diss the Jews doncha know
If Jordan moves too slow (oy vey oh)
It's falling down like a domino

And the bizarre man by the Nile
He got the money in Switzerland
All the crocodiles (oy vey oh)
They snap their teeth on the Sinai plan

Muslim types with the hookah pipes say
Allahu akhbar, Allahu akhbar
March like an Egyptian

The Muslim Brotherhood take their time
They bow down all across the floor
They've got the moves (oy vey oh)
You drop your drink then they whip you for it

The secular kids so sick of Mubarak
They like the punk and the metal band
When music is banned (oy vey oh)
They're marching like an Egyptian

All the kids in the Tahrir Square say
Allah akhbar, Allah akhbar
March like an Egyptian

Slide feet up street bend your back
Make a fist then you pull it back
Life's hard you know (oy vey oh)
So strike a pose on an army tank

If you want to find all the cops
They're hanging out in the falafel shop
They're in a trance(oy vey oh)
They spin the club, cruise down the block

All the Jordanians and their kin
The party boys call the Kremlin
And the Chinese know (oy vey oh)
They march the line like Egyptian

All the cops in the falafel shop say
Allah akhbar, Allahu akhbar
March like an Egyptian
March like an Egyptian

[Moses]

The chasid on whom Mubarak’s face was pasted in evidently Yisroel Dovid Weiss from Neturei Karta...

[Moses]

http://edwardcampbellmedia.blogspot.com/2010/04/interview-with-neturei-karta-rabbi.html

[ah-pee-chorus]

very funny, YL.

[nobody]

"but I believe the vast majority of Egyptians do not want war with Israel or any other nation. "

lol, you are kidding yourself, they are the worst nazis out of any country - including Iran.

They resent sadat and mubarak for "letting Israel off the hook" ie allowing Israel to surrender. They want Israel wiped out and yes they do view the Yom Kippur War as a victory.

[DVIDI]

The rabbi that is photoshoped is from neturei karta.. Bit ironic

[Yochanan Lavie]

Thanks, APC.

[Dave]

Are you telling me you think all Egyptians love Israel? Israel has kept up relations with the deposed dictator for 30 years. What goes around comes around. Maybe Mossad will pull off a "false flag" attack on Tel Aviv so they can nuke Egypt to smithereens. They took out the WTC on 9/11/01. Why not do one in Mossad's "homeland".

[Jew in Little Islamabad]

Yochanan, that was the best one of yours I have seen. Thanks for sharing your humor and creativity.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Thanks, JILI.

[tooclose2detroit]

wow Dave-that would be cool-nuking Egypt-I think I just got a boner.

[nobody]

"They took out the WTC on 9/11/01. "

No, they didn't, you moron.

[william e emba]

These pictures may NOT be reposted or reproduced without permission in writing.

Hypocrite.

[Shmarya]

Hypocrite.

Posted by: william e emba | February 13, 2011 at 03:32 PM

Hypocrite? Please.

They can't be reprinted because I was only given permission to use them on my site. Any further permission will have to be given by the photographer on a case-by-case basis.

The photographer is there, you understand, and the situation is still fluid. Using the pictures has to be done carefully.

Only in the twisted mind of someone like you is this somehow hypocritical.

[Adam Neira]

To Moses,

The photo is not of Rabbi Dovid Weiss of Neturei Karta.

P.S. Moses welcome back to the land of the living. I didn't think we were at the Thirteenth Article of Faith stage of the Redemption but you never know. G-d does work in mysterious ways. Or maybe you are posting from the divine court. How is the internet speed up there ?

[william e emba]

The hypocrisy, Shmarya, refers to the chutzpah with which you "borrow" the copyrighted texts of numerous mainstream media in your cut-and-paste journalism.

Why am I not the least bit surprised that you couldn't figure out what I was referring to? Your lack of ethics is so complete that you are totally oblivious to the fact that you lack them.

[Shmarya]

Posted by: william e emba | February 14, 2011 at 08:01 AM

Actually, I get thanks from journalists for that all the time – including yesterday, by the way.

My use of those articles is done to archive them in one place. I don't make any money to speak of doing it, and because of the way I do it, it drives up the search ranking for the original news source.

What you don't know is that I used to excerpt and link.

But I stopped doing that for several reasons, including the following:

1. A large number of broken links.

2. The policy of VIN, Chabad.info, etc., to steal entire articles without mentioning their original news source or author, and without linking to that original news source – while at the same time editing out inconvenient facts, like the names of criminals – and doing all this on a for profit basis.

3. Requests from journalists that I not excerpt but instead use the entire piece, so it can be completely in context.

4. Thanks from journalists and academics who value the archiving I do.

Quite frankly, if newspapers would keep their links static, meaning that ten years from now, links made today would still work, I'd probably do very little archiving of full articles.

But newspapers are often very bad in this regard – as so many academics and journalists trying to research stories will tell you.

But past all this, my point – clearly made above – was that the permission I have to use the photos does not apply to others, and that the method of publication of these photos could impact the photographer, who may still be in Egypt.

That you ignore this point does indicate a certain bias on your part.

[william e emba]

Actually, I get thanks from journalists for that all the time – including yesterday, by the way.

Which is of no relevance. The journalists are rarely the copyright holders, and they rarely have reproduction rights. They typically believe that they benefit from name exposure, and they also typically believe the costs are magically borne by their employer.

My use of those articles is done to archive them in one place. I don't make any money to speak of doing it, and because of the way I do it, it drives up the search ranking for the original news source.

How noble of you. None of this is a heter.

The question of whether you make money off such articles is not clear. You're certainly not paid to do so, but you do get revenue from the site, and that is based in part on the attractiveness of the site.

What you don't know is that I used to excerpt and link.

But I stopped doing that for several reasons, including the following:

1. A large number of broken links.

Sad, yes, but not a heter.

2. The policy of VIN, Chabad.info, etc., to steal entire articles without mentioning their original news source or author, and without linking to that original news source – while at the same time editing out inconvenient facts, like the names of criminals – and doing all this on a for profit basis.

So, you're a step up from VIN and Chabad? That's it?

3. Requests from journalists that I not excerpt but instead use the entire piece, so it can be completely in context.

Again, the journalists are normally not the copyright holders.

4. Thanks from journalists and academics who value the archiving I do.

Again, not a heter.

Quite frankly, if newspapers would keep their links static, meaning that ten years from now, links made today would still work, I'd probably do very little archiving of full articles.

I believe you. In academia, the static link problem was solved way back with the DOI system.

But newspapers are often very bad in this regard – as so many academics and journalists trying to research stories will tell you.

Beyond being bad, there is also the issue of the paywall. Current stories are free, while typical newspaper archives cost money. Which is their right.

But past all this, my point – clearly made above – was that the permission I have to use the photos does not apply to others, and that the method of publication of these photos could impact the photographer, who may still be in Egypt.

Well, yes, that is your point.

That you ignore this point does indicate a certain bias on your part.

No kidding! You are a sharp one. I admit, I was biased towards explaining my point, and I was not interested in the least in your point.

[Shmarya]

I was biased towards explaining my point, and I was not interested in the least in your point.

Posted by: william e emba | February 14, 2011 at 09:19 AM

So it was okay for you to make sport with someone's life, to risk someone's life, in effect, in order to criticize me?

You should be ashamed.

And you should also note that I regularly post leaked documents and other proprietary information and I think I've watermarked perhaps one or two times.

For the most part, I simply post.

You'll also note other sites regularly take that content without citing me, my blog or linking to me.

As for the rest of what you write, you're wrong. There is a concept of fair use which, according to some opinions does apply to what I do.

Now process: I wrote a warning about reposting the pictures to protect the life of the photographer.

You don't care about that?

Then that shows what a sick person you are.

[william e emba]

So it was okay for you to make sport with someone's life, to risk someone's life, in effect, in order to criticize me?

I did not risk anyone's life, so your remark above is total gibberish.

You should be ashamed.

No, I'm just laughing at your delusions.

And you should also note that I regularly post leaked documents and other proprietary information and I think I've watermarked perhaps one or two times.

Well, yes. Meanwhile, you frequently post copyrighted material with absolutely no indication of permission from the copyright holder, which in most cases is obviously non-existent.

For the most part, I simply post.

Yes. Calling you a "hypocrite" did not refer to the times when you posted original material that you created..

You'll also note other sites regularly take that content without citing me, my blog or linking to me.

Yes, you're not alone. You are certainly not as pathetic as Judith Griggs, but she did set a particularly low standard, so that's not saying much.

Really, Shmarya, consider yourself warned: you're playing with fire. Whether it's a DMCA takedown or Griggs-style nerdstorm coming your way, I have no idea, but it won't be pretty.

As for the rest of what you write, you're wrong. There is a concept of fair use which, according to some opinions does apply to what I do.

Whole articles, as you emphasized earlier in this thread? Certainly not according to any known US legal opinion. And halakha--for what it's worth to you--is for the most part much stricter.

Now process: I wrote a warning about reposting the pictures to protect the life of the photographer.

You don't care about that?

Do you honestly believe that by asking people to keep the pictures here on your website only, you've guaranteed the safety of the picture taker?

Let me explain things to you in slow motion, because you are being enormously dense here. And if you honestly believe the pictures represent a danger, then you are the shameless callous sicko.

You are claiming that so long as the pictures exist here on your website only, the photographer is safe, while if the pictures were to show up elsewhere, the photographer would be in danger? That, of course, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Assuming there is enough digital information embedded in the pictures to help reveal the photographer's identity, then you've already endangered him. A bad guy can simply find the pictures here by Googling "jews tahrir square". (I just checked: you showed up on the 3rd page.)

Meanwhile, I did not advocate reproduction of the pictures anywhere. I'm calling you on the carpet for copyright violation: more precisely, for your hypocrisy. Nothing more.

Then that shows what a sick person you are.

Now that we've got things spelled out a little more clearly, what we see is simply how dumb you are. And how desperate you are to smear people.

[Shmarya]

Posted by: william e emba | February 14, 2011 at 10:33 AM

Please.

I clearly wrote that the context and manner in which the photographs are used may have a negative impact on the photographer.

My notice of restriction is because of that, as I also clearly stated.

I also pointed out that I don't watermark my work. The point of that was to show that this restriction is atypical of what I do.

Lastly, gadol-endorsed site like Matzav.com regularly steal articles, and you know it.

Somehow these haredi gedolim have found a heter for that to be done in a clearly for profit fashion.

And, again, all I do is archive and I do it in a not-for-profit fashion.

You focus on me when you have dozens of thieves in your own community who do by your own admission much worse than what I do based even on your negative assessment.

Why not focus on VIN? Or Matzav? Or any of the dozens of others?

Is it because focusing on the whistleblower is more satisfying for you?

[william e emba]

Please.

Please yourself. Can you kind of stop with your hysterical denunciations that I'm halfway to arranging for the death of the photographer?

I clearly wrote that the context and manner in which the photographs are used may have a negative impact on the photographer.

You did not write this in the article. I had in fact assumed the photographer sent you the photos and asked that you include the extra notice since he was planning to profit from them. And while you don't have any compunctions about stealing from a faceless corporation, the one-on-one is naturally a little more above the board.

My notice of restriction is because of that, as I also clearly stated.

Clearly stated, after the fact.

I also pointed out that I don't watermark my work. The point of that was to show that this restriction is atypical of what I do.

I have noticed that you do take a Creative Commons type attitude towards your own original writing. I also pointed out that this is all irrelevant to my criticism of the Creative Commons type attitude you take towards other people's writing.

Lastly, gadol-endorsed site like Matzav.com regularly steal articles, and you know it.

I do not know it. In fact, I assume matzav.com, for example, is professional enough and smart enough to cover themselves properly. If they get Grigged, well, I'll certainly laugh at them. They're certainly a bigger target than you are.

Somehow these haredi gedolim have found a heter for that to be done in a clearly for profit fashion.

Like I said, I don't know what the arrangements are. Gross stupidity and/or shameless theft on their part here would not surprise me. I assume gedolim approved refers strictly to the kashrus of the news articles, and that the gedolim involved simply trust the site operators to know what they are doing.

And, again, all I do is archive and I do it in a not-for-profit fashion.

You run ads. You are earning something for your efforts, regardless of your tax status.

You focus on me when you have dozens of thieves in your own community who do by your own admission much worse than what I do based even on your negative assessment.

I jumped in on your hypocrisy. If matzav.com rags on you for doing what they do, I'll feel the same about them, although I doubt they would allow for criticism. And like I said, I have no idea of what they are actually doing anyway.

Why not focus on VIN? Or Matzav? Or any of the dozens of others?

I barely read those sites. They don't whistleblow much of anything anymore, now do they? Their intent is to be a censored news source, but since I get my news from elsewhere anyway, they don't really appeal to me.

What little I've read of matzav.com tells me its politics is the now typical mentally ill Republican rah-rah-ism, so I disregard it entirely.

Is it because focusing on the whistleblower is more satisfying for you?

I'm not "focusing" on the whistleblower. I happen to be here, is all.