EXPOSED: UN Media Official Responsible for False Photo Tweet

Middle East • March 2012 • Views: 2,114

Honest Reporting reveals that source of “blood libel” tweet is a United Nations employee.

Khulood Badawi happens to work for the OCHA – the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs where, according to a UN Contact List, she works as an Information and Media Coordinator.

A Google search reveals that Badawi has a history of activism in a range of pro-Palestinian non-governmental organizations, some of them radical and politicized. While this background may not in itself disqualify her from a career with the UN, it is absolutely unacceptable that a UN employee working specifically on dissemination of information to the media and public tweets malicious and false information to libel Israel.

Wasn’t the United Nations supposed to be about promoting peace?

Recent Pages by Cosmic X:
Wash Your Keyboard Out With Soap! America, Whither Go You? Legalizing Gay Marriage: Progress or Regress? Agudath Israel statement on same-sex marriage Education and Sharing Day, U.S.A.

Jump to bottom

20 comments

researchok Wed, Mar 14, 2012 2:09:27am

And this is a surprise?

Cosmic X Wed, Mar 14, 2012 2:13:50am

Not a surprise, bu disturbing nontheless.

researchok Wed, Mar 14, 2012 2:24:46am

It's been going on for decades.

The real story is the refusal of then MSM to present an honest narrative.

Romantic Heretic Wed, Mar 14, 2012 3:50:13am

So, one person in the UN is dishonest therefore the organization is a complete failure. I suppose that must mean the U.S. is a failure because of, say, Rick Santorum or Barack Obama if you come at it from the other side.

And what would we replace the UN with? Do we want to return to the days of international anarchy? That anarchy that resulted in two World Wars?

Bob Levin Wed, Mar 14, 2012 4:11:30am

re: #4 Romantic Heretic

League of Nations existed to stop the WWII. Before WWI, it was considered an age of great diplomacy. What it was, a series of treaties with enumerable clauses that led to war. Nothing has changed, except that this UN is the most corrupt organization in the world.

This tweet doesn't prove it, it just lets us know where it came from. And does nothing to change the reality of the UN.

Obdicut Wed, Mar 14, 2012 5:27:05am

re: #5 Bob Levin

Nothing has changed, except that we haven't had a major war between major powers.

Which is an enormous change.

So, nothing has changed except for all that has changed.

And the UN the most corrupt organization in the world? I assume that's not intended to be a factual statement?

shutdown Wed, Mar 14, 2012 5:47:18am

re: #6 Obdicut

Most corrupt? Who can tell; that is a hard thing to measure, much less prove. But if you are claiming that the UN is responsible for the absence of "major war between major powers", I think you have a series of proofs to deliver, along with some definitional certainty.

Obdicut Wed, Mar 14, 2012 5:49:42am

re: #7 Phlebas

What do you think is the reason for the complete absence of wars between major powers since WWII, when the UN was formed with the explicit purpose of preventing wars between major powers?

Do you think it's simply nuclear weapons?

Obdicut Wed, Mar 14, 2012 5:51:15am

re: #7 Phlebas

And most corrupt is relatively obvious to prove; there are organizations that are totally corrupt; every bit of them is simply corrupt. This is obviously not true of the UN, which does a lot of very good work in areas like vaccination, to give an obvious example.

The major 'problem' with the UN is that it has a lot of member nations that are assholes. Those nations would remain assholes without the UN.

shutdown Wed, Mar 14, 2012 7:48:17am

re: #9 Obdicut

Again, I agree with you on the claim of "most corrupt". But since you imply that the existence of the UN has a causal relationship - not a correlation - with the statistics of international conflict, I think that it is ok to ask you for your references and proofs. I make no claims and offer no hypotheses in this context; I am merely curious about the foundation for your statement.

I agree that the UN does good work in the area of public health through the WHO; it is not clear to me that other organizations (ICRC et al) would not be able to fill that niche in the UN's stead. Also, not really directly relevant to the issue of preventing conflict.

shutdown Wed, Mar 14, 2012 8:01:09am

@Obdicut - btw I didn't bail on our heated discussion last week. My internet connection chose to hang and by the time I got the router reset, the moment had passed. Hope you've had a good week.

Obdicut Wed, Mar 14, 2012 8:05:21am

re: #10 Phlebas

But since you imply that the existence of the UN has a causal relationship - not a correlation - with the statistics of international conflict, I think that it is ok to ask you for your references and proofs.

Do you disagree with the general contention that diplomacy prevents wars?

I agree that the UN does good work in the area of public health through the WHO; it is not clear to me that other organizations (ICRC et al) would not be able to fill that niche in the UN's stead.

So what? They're the ones doing it now. They deserve credit for it.

re: #11 Phlebas

No clue what discussion you're talking about.

Obdicut Wed, Mar 14, 2012 8:14:52am

re: #12 Obdicut

Basically, if we didn't have the UN-- an international organization dedicated to diplomacy between nations and mutually addressing problems like disease and famine that cross borders-- we'd have to create it.

shutdown Wed, Mar 14, 2012 8:16:04am

re: #12 Obdicut

You made a specific statement about the UN and its causal relationship in the prevention of "major war" between "major powers" - neither of which term you define. The role of diplomacy in preventing war is a separate topic; you are making a claim about a specific institution and by extension its institutionalized processes, not about diplomacy as a whole - unless it is your contention that the UN encompasses the entirety of global diplomatic effort.

Obdicut Wed, Mar 14, 2012 8:17:06am

re: #14 Phlebas

You made a specific statement about the UN and its causal relationship in the prevention of "major war" between "major powers" - neither of which term you define.

Oh never fucking mind.

Buck Wed, Mar 14, 2012 1:57:11pm

re: #15 Obdicut

Oh never fucking mind.

You are so literal when other are posting.

How about: The UN: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

What ever the UN was in the beginning is lost completely. Today it is an organization dedicated to Israel's destruction.

The problem is that a great number of Ambassador's do not represent the people, but they represent the wishes of the Dictator.

Whatever the UN does that you find positive is outweighed by the harm they do.

Buck Wed, Mar 14, 2012 2:10:46pm

re: #9 Obdicut

Those nations would remain assholes without the UN.

Yes but they wouldn't be given a vote, and us it to destroy Israel.

Bob Levin Wed, Mar 14, 2012 2:48:24pm

re: #17 Buck

Also, tyrants use the UN to as cover for their heinous crimes. The Human Rights Commission is comprised of cold-blooded killers, or at best, accomplices in crimes against humanity. Countries, and terrorist organizations, who have a seat at the UN, who exercise brutal repression of the press and repression of a proper education have a seat on UNESCO.

I haven't even mentioned how many of their projects become fronts for impressing children into slavery. In fact, I haven't mentioned many of their highly publicized crimes. One doesn't have to look far to find such documentation. To not see it, you have to not want to see it.

Flavia Wed, Mar 14, 2012 5:41:43pm

re: #16 Buck

How about: The UN: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

What ever the UN was in the beginning is lost completely. Today it is an organization dedicated to Israel's destruction.

The problem is that a great number of Ambassador's do not represent the people, but they represent the wishes of the Dictator.

Whatever the UN does that you find positive is outweighed by the harm they do.

This will come as a shock to the people who know me (& maybe even some people on here!), but, even without Israel to go after, the UN has completely lost its way &, in at least some ways, has become the reverse of what it was supposed to be. I present as evidence (almost at random - as in, its the first thing I could think of, even if someone else can find something more egregious): "The Moamar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize." Any group that can promote something like that is a disgrace at best, much less a group supposedly dedicated to human rights & keeping the peace!

Bob Levin Wed, Mar 14, 2012 6:46:58pm

re: #19 Flavia

Absolutely. I also listed things that have nothing to do with Israel. That's how easy this is.

I'm not even Syrian, and I pretty much know how the Syrians feel about me (without even knowing which of my specific qualities to dislike)--and I am sickened to read the daily reports coming out of Syria. And the Security, that is what they are called, the Security Council can't even muster up a 'tsk tsk.'

It's absolutely appalling, and no one would tolerate this coming from any other organization on the planet.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!