Israel wants UN official who engaged in deceptive anti-Israeli propaganda out!

Israel has a bone to pick with the United Nations (UN).

Recently, an information and media coordinator for the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Kuhlood Badawi, Tweeted a picture of a The picture is graphic and shows a dead young girl covered with blood in the arms of a man presumed to be her father. Badawi posted this message along with the image (warning: violent image; not work safe).

Palestine is bleeding. Another child killed by #Israel. Another father carrying his child to a grave in #Gaza.

It's a very tragic scene that would pull the heart strings of most people. Unsurprisingly the picture was Retweeted hundreds of times and spread across the internet like wildfire. The problem is, it is actually a picture taken in 2006 and the girl was the unfortunate victim of an automobile collision unrelated to Israel.

Herb Keinon in The Jerusalem Post reports that Israel's UN Ambassador Ron Prosor demanded that Badawi be fired from her job. Prosor pointed out that the Tweet became the top tweet of the day for Gaza related Tweets. Prosor also demanded that the OCHA release a statement about the truth behind the picture.

Keinon also reports that the Israeli Foreign Ministry believes that the OCHA is merely an organization in favor of Palestinian propaganda and that this recent action by Badawi is the icing on the cake. The Foreign Ministry may have a point, as OCHA has an entire website dedicated solely to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Keinon was surprisingly soft on the issue, merely reporting the Tweet, the revelation of the truth behind the photograph, and Israel's response. Keinon seems to be acting as an objective journalist inputting as little opinion as possible. The Post has however published an article by Israel Kasnett in their "magazine" calling for the UN Human Rights Council to be dissolved, with this Twitter incident cited as a reason.

A healthy debate is always good and should be welcomed. Anyone who fears a legitimate argument is practicing misology. Badawi's bias against Israel is clearly obvious as her Twitter account has the phrase "Long live Palestine" above her username and the background features artwork of a woman holding a Palestinian flag. Badawi is certainly right to her opinion and may even have good arguments in favor of it, but to deceive others is not the means to a good debate. It is simply propaganda.

Badawi did eventually Tweet this retraction:

Correction: I tweeted the photo believing it was from the last round of violence & it turned out to be from 2006 This is my personal account

This is eight days after the fact, and a few days after her job was being threatened. It feels like a desperate attempt to cling to her comfy UN job as opposed to a genuine apology over a supposed mistake. Her pointing out that her Twitter is her personal account comes off as a defense in order to separate her role in the OCHA from the incident. I am guessing that her goal is to declare that she is protected by free speech, though the argument against that is the fact that the UN as an organization should have the right to dismiss officials for various reasons. An information and media coordinator engaging in such behavior in my opinion is grounds for termination as it discredits the OCHA.

For those who fact-check and question what they read and see, the picture actually discredits her side of the argument. Unfortunately, the damage is done and many probably still do not know that the tragic image, while still tragic, was unrelated to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The death of a child is tragic. The deceptive usage of the death of a child for your own gains is absolutely disgusting.

The Iranian Nuclear Question: Hardly New

Iran has been appearing in the news rather frequently as of late. Even as most American voters seem to be most concerned about the economy, the subject of Iran is usually brought up in every 2012 Presidential debate. The topic of Iran and nuclear weapons is of course of great interest to Israel in particular, as relations between the two became very much hostile since the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

A book could be written on the whole affair, even if its just to cover a fraction of the time since 1979. Indeed, Herb Keinon's article in The Jerusalem Post is titled 'Planning underway for other 'options' on Iran' but covers a wide range of topics, including the Iron Dome anti-missile system, American-Egyptian relations and the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation agreement. Some of these, surprisingly enough, is related to Israel's question on what to do, if anything, about Iran.

The Post tries to be descriptive and objective as possible, explaining their headline with the fact that US Ambassador Dan Shapiro stated in Jerusalem that all options are "on the table" and that plans are being made to make sure that said options can be pulled off. Israeli President Shimon Peres also spoke, defending the right and capability of Israel to defend itself "against any threat." Peres also rebutted the claim made by The Haaretz that he would tell President Barack Obama that Israel should not attack Iran.

Shapiro discussed some of the options that were already being practiced by the US such as economic sanctions. Interestingly enough, Shapiro downplayed the supposed disconnect between the Obama administration and Israel, saying that “those who talk don’t know, and those who know don’t talk. Much of what is written on this topic is pure speculation and much of it is wrong.”

The article continues to talk about other subjects Shapiro mentions such as the Iron Dome anti-missile system. The connection is not made clear asides from Shapiro talking about all of this at the same event. However, it is related in that the Iron Dome shoots rockets shot from Gaza suspected to be fired from the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah; the two groups are funded by Iran.

The article continues with more statements from Shapiro. An emphasis on existing contracts was made by Shapiro, referencing Egyptian interests. As a last note, Shapiro stated that the American government, unsurprisingly, does not feel optimistic regarding the Hamas-Fatah unity agreement.

It's possible that The Post may have cherry picked from Shapiro's speech, but it seems to be the most informative out of coverage from other outlets such as Tel Aviv's Yedioth Ahronoth. The headline is misleading in that the article is more about Shapiro's speech rather than a specific part of it covering Iran. This could be because an American ambassador stating that "all options are on the table" is a significant enough event to warrant the title of the headline. Most other news sources don't even bother reporting on the rest of Shapiro's statements.

The whole thing has a sense of deja vu, as a 2009 article in the New York Daily News explains in its headline, "Israeli Defense Minister Barak to U.S.: 'No option' off table on Iran." The real question that should be asked is not wither or not Israel has the right to defend itself, but rather, if it should engage in a preemptive strike. Other questions may follow, such as the issue of American involvement in such a strike. So far, Israel has decided to refrain from a strike against Iran.