4 thoughts on “Guardian Acknowledges Javedanfar Falsely Attributed Quote in Iran Article – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. RE: “During the second Intifada, 700 Israelis were killed with suicide bombs paid for by Iranian money. Or half at least. The other half came from Saudi Arabia…” ~ Meir Javedanfar

    SEE: “The Dogs of War: The Next Intifada”, By Uri Avnery, Counterpunch, 9/03/11

    [EXCERPT] . . . The second (“al-Aqsa”) intifada started after the breakdown of the 2000 Camp David conference and Ariel Sharon’s deliberately provocative “visit” to the Temple Mount. The Palestinians held non-violent mass demonstrations. The army responded with selective killings. A sharpshooter accompanied by an officer would take position in the path of the protest, and the officer would point out selected targets – protesters who looked like “ringleaders”. They were killed.
    This was highly effective. Soon the non-violent demonstrations ceased and were replaced by very violent (“terrorist”) actions. With those the army was back on familiar ground. . .

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/02/the-next-intifada/

  2. I am Julian Borger. I am the diplomatic editor, rather than managing editor, of The Guardian, and forwarded your complaint to our readers editor, who functions as an independent ombudsman. He made the adjustment. There is no implication by The Guardian that Meir Javedanfar sought to mislead readers, or that having a link to a news report on the IAEA findings rather than on the IAEA findings in the body of the text represented deliberately false attribution.

    1. My apologies for misstating your position & for mistakenly believing you had anything to do with the correction of Javedandar’s article.

      I note you called the correction published by the ombundsman an “adjustment,” which is so very English of you. Here in America where we’re more direct, we call it a correction.

      Also, I did not explicitly say Javedanfar’s error was a case of “deliberately false attribution.” Neither one of us can know whether Javednafar did this deliberately or not. But you can certainly see from his other similar errors at The Diplomat and elsewhere, that he does things like this regularly. And when he does so, it usually advances a particular pre-conception he has about the suspect motives & intentions of the Iranian government. So whether this is mere sloppiness on his part or deliberate misrepresentation, I don’t know.

      Though I understand that you do not wish to take responsibility for the correction that the Guardian published, I presume if you believed the correction was being made in error you would have made your feelings known & things would have gone differently.

      You should also be made aware that Javedanfar is exploiting the statement you made above to claim you have vindicated him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link