CiF Watch prompts Guardian correction to claim about Iran Sanctions Bill

A Guardian report by Mairav Zonszein (‘Binyamin Netanyahu defiant over planned US Congress speech’, Feb. 9th) included the following claim regarding the new Iran Sanctions bill (S 1881) proposed in the Senate.


However, as multiple reports – including several in the Guardian – make clear, the bill (co-sponsored by 59 US Senators) calls for sanctions only after negotiations are concluded – and then, only if a deal is not reached (or if Iran reneges on the terms of an agreement).

Dan Roberts, writing in the Guardian on Feb 6, got it right:

Netanyahu and Boehner both fear that the suspension of Iranian sanctions during talks aimed at preventing it from developing nuclear weapons have weakened international resolve to contain the threat and would like to see Congress pass legislation authorising new sanctions if a deal is not reached.

And, a Guardian article by Saeed Kamali Dehghan on Feb. 3 was also quite clear:

In Washington, a bipartisan bill co-authored by senator Robert Menendez, a Democrat, and senator Mark Kirk, a Republican, seeks further sanctions on Iran if the ongoing negotiations fail to reach a comprehensive agreement by the end of June

Here’s the precise language from the actual bill:

iran sanctions

Following communication with the Guardian, they agreed to revise the passage. 

Here’s the new passage, with an addendum noting the correction:


We commend Guardian editors for the prompt correction.

19 replies »

  1. Zonszein is one of the founders of 972mag and and absolute nutter. Her writings are those of an obsessed child.

  2. Clearly an error which was cleared up promptly by the Guardian, as you have noted.

    I wonder though, why such an error would be reported in a blog which is dedicated to monitoring antisemitism and assaults on Israel’s legitimacy? Do you think it was anti-Semitic or assaulted Israel’s legitimacy?

    • Such errors, when reporting about Israel, The Arab world and Zionism, are all to frequent.
      Wouldn’t you say that if left unchecked such poor “journalism” can lead to a rise in AntiSemitic attacks in our streets, and given the wider circulation of the Guardian through the internet, elsewhere in the world?

      I doubt it very much that such “lazy journalism” was a mistake, though I can’t prove it.
      Shall we leave it at that?

      • Even if it was deliberate by the journalist in question, The guardian must be credited with putting it right very quickly.

        • “We commend Guardian editors for the prompt correction.”

          But don’t take my word for it, Dinkleberry. Do some research by scrolling to the end of the article.

          • I congratulate the Gooniadian for promptly correcting one really stupid and obvious error , amongst many , certainly due to shoddy journalism and poor editorial control but remedied by the prompt action of CiF Watch .

            alternatively , why should we have to thank em for correcting a basic fact .?
            oooh doff me cap sire , to your wisdom and eminence .

            They should thank us and in particular Mr Levick for helping them through such shoddy journalism with prompt communications to them. My gosh they should be extra grateful that we care enough to monitor their anti-Semitism .
            I haven’t seen one gooniad journalist ever thanks us .

            It would be a refreshing change if the Goonadian wrote a letter to CiF watch thanking us .

            • Ah , you have never worked in a organisation that publishes so much so fast. See what you think after a stint in the newsroom of a major newspaper.

              • Almost correct Dinkle. The full version:
                you have never worked in a organisation that publishes so much antisemitic lies so fast. See what you think after a stint in the newsroom of a major Pravda-style far left rag.

              • Dinks
                Its good to know that you have worked in a major newsroom, so you know the score . Speed is no replacement or excuse for journalistic and professional accuracy.
                As you see on this site , a person says a word or adjective out of order and is likely to get commented on .

                I bet in your day , journos were required to verify a story with a bit more diligence than a 5 min google search . Also the editors were proper editors who did not take shoddiness . Plus the coffee was better and you were all allowed to smoke in the office . There were pioneers and stubborn gits in journalism and media . Characters who did not tow the party line but told truth .

                Alas , that isn’t the Goonadian at the moment . As you said once , they are down to flogging auto trader to survive .

                I hear on the vine the proposal to join up with the NYT with Mr Freidland as the head honcho . However the anti Semites still don’t want a Jew running it and have started the trolling against him .

        • Dinkle:

          “Even if it was deliberate by the journalist in question, The guardian must be credited with putting it right very quickly.”

          Excuse me!
          If it was deliberate the Guardian is guilty of either slander in case of individual concerned and / or inciting to commit acts of violence or the spread of Anti Semitic material.
          Also it will be guilty of failing to adhere to its code of conduct and to knowingly spread misinformation.

          The fact that it corrected itself because it got caught doesn’t excuse it from spreading lies in the first place!
          With great power comes great responsibility!
          The guardian abuses it responsibility.
          I cannot prove it is doing this intentionally by either way it is way past high noon it got its house in order!

  3. The first is always that it provides anonymity: Your coworkers and friends won’t
    view you at the strip club or purchasing pornography at the local newsstand.
    It was number of years back when, people were required to locate sources
    to watch out for sex partners. The great thing about adult chat services
    are that you simply can make the webcam girls that you simply are most fascinated by
    and they also will indulge your sexual whims directly.

  4. I’ve been browsing online greater than three hours today, yet I never found any interesting
    article like yours. It is pretty worth enough for me.
    In my view, if all website owners and bloggers made excellent content material as
    you did, the internet will likely be much more helpful than ever before.

  5. It’s amazing how often The Guardian, the NYT, CNN, BBC, CBC, and a variety of other media outlets have to retract, correct, and apologize for errors — that defame Israel and its supporters. It happens very seldom, if ever, that there are errors making the Palestinians et al. look worse than they are.
    When a store clerk consistently makes errors in giving change that return less than the correct amount to the customer, and seldom if every makes one in the opposite direction, I usually conclude that these are motivated, not random, “errors.”
    What does that tell us about the media?