The Guardian picked up on an article in the World Policy Journal where a former US ambassador blamed Israel for a 1988 plane crash that killed Pakistani dictator General Zia ul-Haq (pictured). The problem is that the World Policy Journal has since removed the allegation from Barbara Crossette’s reflection on the incident.
Former US ambassador to India John Gunther Dean told Crossette that it was plausible to believe the Mossad was behind the crash in order to set back Pakistan’s nuclear program—but has no proof. Crossette was skeptical enough to tell Pakistan’s Daily Times why Dean is speaking out now:
Ms Crossette says that Mr Dean, now 80, wants the stigma of mental imbalance removed and is collecting his papers and is ready to share his thoughts. He lost his medical and security clearance because of his views and was forced to seek retirement in 1988.
Considering that The Guardian acknowledges that the plane had a history of technical faults, why is the paper so eager to give a soapbox to another unsubstantiated conspiracy theory?
