UN Officer Lies on Twitter about Israeli Attack, Remains Employed

UN_General_AssemblyFox News reports that Khulood Badawi, an officer in the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), “used Twitter to send a picture of a bloodied child in her father’s arms with a caption: ‘Palestine is bleeding. Another child killed by Israel. Another father carrying a child into a grave in Gaza.’” The child in the picture, however, was a victim not of Israel but of an accident. As Israeli Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor wrote in a letter to OCHA Under-Secretary General Valerie Amos, “The picture was taken and published in 2006 by Reuters, which reported that this child died in an accident. She was not killed by Israeli forces.”

Badawi, of course, remains employed by the UN.

As I said in a previous post on the United Nations,

The U.N. is a fundamentally corrupt institution that supports tyrannical regimes and terrorist groups across world—from giving a platform to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his efforts to annihilate Israel, to granting the Palestinian Liberation Organization membership in UNESCO, to appointing North Korea as the chair of the Conference on Disarmament. The U.N.’s actions are consistently pro-tyranny and anti-America.

No one should be surprised that the UN would harbor dishonest, pro-terrorist, anti-Israeli scum such as Badawi. But everyone should be disgusted by it.

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.

Related:

Image: Eborutta


Comments submitted to TOS Blog are moderated. To be considered for posting, a comment must be civil, substantive, and fewer than 400 words in length. If approved, your comment will be posted soon.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CRE6REGHBOCNFLN4NJIXNMIEFM Mike Kevitt

    It occurs to me that if we should be (and should have been) taking out regimes that sponsor terrorism, and the U.N. sponsors such regimes AND terrorism, then we should either shut down the U.N. (not just get it off U.S. soil) or change the regime running it (fundamentlly change its charter).  And, if needed, the U.S. should do either one unilaterally.  In passing, we’d find out if we really have any allies in the world, and who, if any, they are.  Whether we have allies or not, the rest of the world would probably form a new U.N. under the same original charter.  We’d have to keep busting it up and keep going after the worst member offenders and keep bringing them into our camp until no U.N. under such a regime could ever be a threat.  And, our camp would be good guys, seriously, like Japan after WWII.  Initial allies would make it easier to do that, but, whatever, I wonder if it could be done.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CRE6REGHBOCNFLN4NJIXNMIEFM Mike Kevitt

    It occurs to me that if we should be (and should have been) taking out regimes that sponsor terrorism, and the U.N. sponsors such regimes AND terrorism, then we should either shut down the U.N. (not just get it off U.S. soil) or change the regime running it (fundamentlly change its charter).  And, if needed, the U.S. should do either one unilaterally.  In passing, we’d find out if we really have any allies in the world, and who, if any, they are.  Whether we have allies or not, the rest of the world would probably form a new U.N. under the same original charter.  We’d have to keep busting it up and keep going after the worst member offenders and keep bringing them into our camp until no U.N. under such a regime could ever be a threat.  And, our camp would be good guys, seriously, like Japan after WWII.  Initial allies would make it easier to do that, but, whatever, I wonder if it could be done.