More curious goings-on at the Jewish Chronicle (JC), the only paper in British history, so far as I can see, where we are not allowed to know who owns it, or why. This cloak of secrecy led to five of its best columnists to walk out last year—and is now raising questions about the attitude of its new editor.
The story begins with a group of Israeli heroes—nearly all of them former heads of intelligence, military or security agencies–deciding that enough was enough. Together, they penned a punchy advertisement criticising the policies and behaviour of Bibi Netanyahu and placed it in two leading Israeli newspapers. It caused quite a stir.
The assorted former generals, admirals, prime ministers and police chiefs then decided that the advertisement should be seen by a wider international audience. Donors paid to place the text in the Times, where it ran on 17th April (page 19)—and in the Jewish News, where it appeared alongside a parallel advertisement from Israeli families whose loved ones had been caught up as hostages of Hamas.
So far, so normal. The Jewish Chronicle, which prides itself on being the main conduit for Jewish opinion in the UK, initially seemed happy to run the advertisement. But at the last moment, it was pulled. A senior account manager at the JC apologised for refusing it, explaining the editor “is not comfortable running it.”
Now—and I’m sorry to be so basic about this—it is generally understood that advertisements do not reflect the views of a news organisation. That is their whole point. Suitably labelled, they can promote washing up liquid, cars, luxury holidays or political views, and no half-discerning reader would mistake the content as representing the opinion of the editorial side of the business.
Editors can, and very occasionally do, reject advertisements if they are misleading or offensive. But this advertisement is clearly the opinion of 18 people who are supremely qualified to speak on the subject of Israel’s security. So, something else must be going on in this particular case.
I spoke to one of the signatories, Admiral Ami Ayalon, who headed the Israeli internal security service, Shin Bet, from 1996 to 2000. A former member of the Knesset, he is the recipient of Israel’s highest decoration, the Medal of Valour. No armchair woke lefty, he.
He said he and his colleagues felt impelled to draft and sign the advertisement out of a conviction that the behaviour of Netanyahu “is becoming a major and immediate threat to the security and identity of Israel as a Jewish democracy.”
The retired security chiefs—they included former heads of the Mossad, the IDF, the police and military intelligence as well as ex-prime minister Ehud Barak—initially placed the advertisement in two Israeli newspapers, Yedioth Ahronoth and Israel Hayom. Even the latter, which was initially financed by the late American casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson and is considered friendly to Netanyahu, had no qualms about accepting it.
Ayalon considered that the text had a considerable impact because it was signed by a group of leaders who, together, had more than 800 years of security service.
He and his co-signatories badly wanted it to be read by the broader Jewish diaspora. “Israel is the only country that belongs, not only to its citizens,” said Ayalon. “It is a state for all Jewish people. Jewish communities abroad sometimes do not understand what we are facing.”
“Jews are paying the price of the policy of our government when we kill tens of thousands of Palestinians. I meet many youngsters in England or America, and they are asking questions. I think it’s very important for Jewish communities to understand that there are people who do not support government policy.”
The text of the advertisement does not pull its punches. It accuses Netanyahu of some responsibility for strengthening Hamas and thus for the terrible events of 7th October 2023. “Netanyahu is… propelling Israel to catastrophe—harming the security of the state, damaging its democratic regime and its institutions, and leading Israel to a dictatorship.”
The text goes on to call for a state commission of inquiry; the immediate return of hostages under a ceasefire agreement; and an agreed date for elections.
Ayalon was astonished that The Jewish Chronicle should have rejected this text. “I still keep asking myself, ‘Why?’”
In Israel, he said, it would be unthinkable for the ownership of a newspaper to be secret. “No, no, no… No way, no way. There’s no way to get permission to publish a full newspaper without knowing exactly who is behind it.”
“I almost said ‘this is your problem in England,’ but I have to admit that I feel it is our problem as well. The Jewish Chronicle represents a Jewish voice, or at least they pretend to represent a Jewish voice. We Jews depend on each other, so I can’t say it’s only your problem in England.”
I asked someone involved in placing the advertisement in three British publications why they thought the JC had rejected it. They suggested that the paper's secret ownership might be a factor. “It feels to me as if the owners are in some way, shape, or form very closely aligned and/or tied up with the Israeli government.”
This brings us back to Ipso’s very relaxed attitude to the JC and its lapses in editorial standards over the years. You will remember the press regulator declined to launch an inquiry in 2022, partly because the Ipso’s chair, Lord Faulks, was reassured by the paper’s new owners, not that there is any evidence that he knew who they were.
This month, Lord Faulks once again said he would not look any further into the JC’s editorial standards after the paper published what seems to have been a planted story which dovetailed with Netanyahu’s priorities in Gaza. One of his reasons was that the paper had a new editor.
I approached the editor, Daniel Schwammenthal, to see whether he would elaborate on why he did not feel “comfortable” running the advertisement. He replied: “As the relatively new editor of a newspaper that serves Britain’s Jewish community, I am wary of having our pages used by factions in Israeli politics to fight their domestic battles,” he said.
“This is not a ban; it’s a matter of me exercising editorial judgment on a case-by-case basis—and that includes political advertising.
“This particular advert made no reference to Britain and seemed to have been lifted directly from the Israeli press. I certainly don’t wish to cause offence to anyone, but I make no apology for my decision.”
It would be good if, in time, the new editor could offer an update on the JC’s proposed switch to a form of charitable trust, which seems not to have happened. It would also be illuminating to know who has overall oversight of the JC’s editorial standards. And, of course, it would be even better if Mr Schwammenthal decided it’s ultimately untenable for an editor to be complicit in the secrecy over who’s been paying the bills.
In resigning from the paper for which both he and his father had written for so many years, the columnist Jonathan Freedland said: “Too often, the JC reads like a partisan, ideological instrument, its judgements political rather than journalistic.”
Lord Faulks, the press regulator, appears to see no problem in any of this, even if Israel’s most decorated military and intelligence top brass do. Ipso has decided to adopt the stance of a nodding dog. How long before MPs, who were so exercised over the question of who could be allowed to own the Telegraph, start asking questions?
