Latest news with #JewishChronicle
The Independent
25-04-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Is the secret ownership of the Jewish Chronicle stifling criticism of Netanyahu?
More curious goings-on at the Jewish Chronicle, 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 April 17 (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 7 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. 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 [Jewish Chronicle] 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?
The Herald Scotland
23-04-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
‘Never forget road to Holocaust began in a democracy'
The site is the planned location of the new UK Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper speaks to Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis at the 80th Anniversary National Yom HaShoah Commemoration (James Manning/PA) Addressing attendees, the Home Secretary said: 'More than three quarters of a century on, we know antisemitism has remained stubbornly present in our own society, and the torrent of antisemitism that swept through countries, including here in the UK, following the October 7th barbaric terrorist attacks, was sickening and intolerable. 'And I want to say to Britain's Jewish communities, on behalf of the Government and of Members of Parliament from across all political parties, we will not stand for it, not now, not ever. 'Antisemitism has no place in our nation.' Of the memorial, she said: 'It's so important too, that it's here in the shadow of Parliament, in the heart of our democracy, because we must never forget that the road to the Holocaust began in a democracy, and that memorial must be the constant reminder of what happens when our democratic values and traditions fail, and also to show us how democracies remember and learn from the past because to build a better future means, when never again means never again, we must continue to listen to the survivors' stories, which, with every passing year become so much more precious.' Yvette Cooper met Bergen-Belsen survivor Susan Pollack (right) at the event on Wednesday (James Manning/PA) It comes as the Prime Minister vowed to 'fight the poison of antisemitism' and 'protect' the Jewish community in an article for the Jewish Chronicle, published on Wednesday. Sir Keir Starmer wrote: 'Together, we will fight the poison of antisemitism wherever it is found. 'We renew our demand that the 59 hostages still held by Hamas are freed and we must also see a return to the ceasefire. 'And here in Britain, just as I made it my mission to root out the stain of antisemitism from my political party, so I will do the same for the country. 'We will protect our Jewish community, including Jewish students on our university campuses. 'We will never accept people being abused, attacked, or threatened because of who they are or what they believe. 'And we will back the police wherever antisemitic hate crimes are committed – whether in person or online.'
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Dozens of members of UK Jewish body facing disciplinary action over criticism of Israel
Three dozen members of the largest body representing British Jews are facing disciplinary action after signing an open letter criticising Israel over the war in Gaza. Amid signs of deepening divisions among British Jews over the 18-month long war, the Board of Deputies announced this week that all 36 signatories to the letter were now 'subject to a complaints procedure' after 'multiple complaints'. One, Harriett Goldenberg, was suspended as vice-chair of the board's international division pending the investigation. She was also asked to step back from her role on the executive until the result of the investigation, according to the Jewish Chronicle. A statement from the board said the letter was 'not representative' of its policy on Israel. A special meeting of its executive committee was convened on Tuesday to 'discuss the ramifications and consequences of this act'. The committee voted unanimously to open a complaints procedure, which is expected to take at least four weeks, the board said. The signatories to the letter, which was published by the Financial Times, said they could no longer 'turn a blind eye or remain silent' over the war in Gaza. 'Israel's soul is being ripped out', they said. They added: 'The inclination to avert our eyes is strong, as what is happening is unbearable, but our Jewish values compel us to stand up and to speak out.' Since the break out of the war, which began after the attacks by Hamas against Israelis on October 7 2023, statements by the Board of Deputies have been broadly supportive of the Israeli government. After the executive committee meeting this week, Phil Rosenberg, the board's president, said: 'We take alleged breaches of the code of conduct very seriously … The Board of Deputies is clear: only our democratically elected honorary officers and authorised staff speak on behalf of the organisation.' Last week, Michael Wegier, the board's chief executive, said a group of deputies had 'aired their views in a national publication, specifically in their capacity as deputies, leading them to an incorrect assumption by a significant number of people in our community and beyond, that this group is putting forward the board's official position, which it is not.' In an article in the Jewish Chronicle, he added: 'Taking the legitimate and often painful debate within our community to the letters pages of national newspapers, and sowing confusion about the position of the community as a whole, is a shortsighted and dangerous precedent.' Most of the letter's signatories belong to Reform, Liberal or Masorti communities. Many of the complaints reportedly came from members of the United Synagogue, the largest communal denomination in the UK. Goldenberg has been approached for comment.
The Guardian
23-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Dozens of members of UK Jewish body facing disciplinary action over criticism of Israel
Three dozen members of the largest body representing British Jews are facing disciplinary action after signing an open letter criticising Israel over the war in Gaza. Amid signs of deepening divisions among British Jews over the 18-month long war, the Board of Deputies announced this week that all 36 signatories to the letter were now 'subject to a complaints procedure' after 'multiple complaints'. One, Harriett Goldenberg, was suspended as vice-chair of the board's international division pending the investigation. She was also asked to step back from her role on the executive until the result of the investigation, according to the Jewish Chronicle. A statement from the board said the letter was 'not representative' of its policy on Israel. A special meeting of its executive committee was convened on Tuesday to 'discuss the ramifications and consequences of this act'. The committee voted unanimously to open a complaints procedure, which is expected to take at least four weeks, the board said. The signatories to the letter, which was published by the Financial Times, said they could no longer 'turn a blind eye or remain silent' over the war in Gaza. 'Israel's soul is being ripped out', they said. They added: 'The inclination to avert our eyes is strong, as what is happening is unbearable, but our Jewish values compel us to stand up and to speak out.' Since the break out of the war, which began after the attacks by Hamas against Israelis on October 7 2023, statements by the Board of Deputies have been broadly supportive of the Israeli government. After the executive committee meeting this week, Phil Rosenberg, the board's president, said: 'We take alleged breaches of the code of conduct very seriously … The Board of Deputies is clear: only our democratically elected honorary officers and authorised staff speak on behalf of the organisation.' Last week, Michael Wegier, the board's chief executive, said a group of deputies had 'aired their views in a national publication, specifically in their capacity as deputies, leading them to an incorrect assumption by a significant number of people in our community and beyond, that this group is putting forward the board's official position, which it is not.' In an article in the Jewish Chronicle, he added: 'Taking the legitimate and often painful debate within our community to the letters pages of national newspapers, and sowing confusion about the position of the community as a whole, is a shortsighted and dangerous precedent.' Most of the letter's signatories belong to Reform, Liberal or Masorti communities. Many of the complaints reportedly came from members of the United Synagogue, the largest communal denomination in the UK. Goldenberg has been approached for comment.
The Independent
18-04-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
A crisis at the Jewish Chronicle shows the toothlessness of the press watchdog
In Tel Aviv, a festering scandal reaches the top of Israeli society. In London, a shrug of a regulator's shoulders. Welcome to the latest twist in the baffling story of the Jewish Chronicle. You may remember the origins of the mystery: a fake story from a dodgy source published by the JC last September. The article, under the byline of Elon Perry, echoed the talking points of Israel 's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and was alleged to be based on documents uncovered in the Gaza Strip. It all turned out to be rubbish. After Israeli journalists exposed the nonsense, the JC announced an inquiry. The very next day – September 13 – the paper concluded its 'thorough investigation'. A two paragraph statement offered no explanation of how it had come to publish such manipulated tosh but assured readers that the paper 'maintains the highest journalistic standards.' Phew. Just imagine if it didn't. The statement said it had removed the story from its website because the paper was not satisfied with some of the claims Perry had made about his background. It did not address the more pertinent question of whether or not the story was true. It wasn't. Three months later, the editor, Jake Wallis Simons, announced that he would be stepping down to write a book. Did the owner of the JC decide that heads must roll? Who's to say, since we are not allowed to know who the ultimate owner of the JC is. It was rescued from almost inevitable insolvency by a consortium led by BBC director Sir Robbie Gibb. But who actually stumped up the £3.5m to keep the title afloat, and why, remains a riddle. The 'leak' to the JC was suspiciously like an equally ropey story planted on the German tabloid Bild. The two events piqued the interest of the Israeli security service, Shin Bet. It didn't take long for them to arrest Eli Feldstein, a spokesman for Netanyahu, who had previously worked for the far-right Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israeli censorship laws prevent us from knowing all the details, but it has been reported that Feldstein is one of five people arrested in connection with the alleged leaking of documents which – hostage relatives claim – may have undermined a ceasefire and the release of hostages. Feldstein has reportedly argued that he was acting on orders from his superiors and has been made a scapegoat. Benny Gantz, who until recently was in Netanyahu's war cabinet, said that if sensitive security information was used for a "political survival campaign', it would not only be a criminal offence, but "a crime against the nation". The revelations also led to intense criticism from the families of the hostages, who said it implied an active campaign to discredit them, calling it "a moral low that has no depth. This is a fatal injury to the remnants of trust between the government and its citizens." The seven-month Shin Bet investigation has widened into an apparently interlinked scandal, dubbed Qatargate, which threatens to bring down Netanyahu. The prime minister has duly sacked Ronen Bar, the head of the agency investigating him. The story is, in other words, complex, extremely murky and explosive. Now consider the response of IPSO, the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which was set up after the Leveson Inquiry and is supposed to monitor standards in the newspapers it regulates. The body, chaired by a former Conservative peer, Lord Faulks, has been monitoring the JC for some time due to the significant number of complaints about the paper dating back to 2019. In 2022, he refused to launch a standards inquiry, arguing a) that the paper had a new owner and b) that the staff had undergone IPSO training. It is not clear that Lord Faulks had any idea who the owner was. Fast-forward to 2025. Once again, IPSO has considered investigating the JC but, once again, decided against it. The JC apparently told IPSO's top sleuths that the explanation for its catastrophic mistake was 'unexpected staff absences.' After talking to JC staff, IPSO felt it had a 'good understanding of what had occurred and why.' It does not let us into the secret. It noted that – as in 2022 – JC staff had agreed to more IPSO training – yes, even more IPSO training. Perhaps including how to make better staff rotas. Nothing to see here, move along now. The Leveson Inquiry sat for 100 days, produced a report of around 2000 pages and cost around £5m. A new regulator, IPSO, was the main outcome – a body with supposedly more bite than its toothless predecessor, the Press Complaints Commission, and the power to launch investigations where there are patterns of editorial concern. It can theoretically fine publishers up to £1m. In fact, in its 10 years of existence, it has launched no standards investigations and fined no one. You would not guess from IPSO's most recent statement that the successful mission to plant a story in the JC appears to have owed more to black ops than rota mishaps. Indeed, there is nothing at all about the massive Shin Bet inquiry into the affair, or the political background in Israel. In deciding not to launch a standards inquiry into the paper in 2022 Lord Faulks took great comfort from the new ownership of the JC. Does he have any idea who they are? If so, should he not tell us? If not, why should he place any trust in them? Did Jake Wallis Simons jump, or was he pushed? If Lord Faulks has asked, he does not tell us. Who appointed the new editor, Daniel Schwammenthal? Companies House tells us that the two current directors are [Lord] Ian Austin, a former Labour MP and Jonathan Kandel, a 'senior tax consultant.' Was it them? Or the owner? Do Messrs Austin and Kandel have overall editorial control? If not, who does? The IPSO report suggests neither man was spoken to. Did anyone speak to Robbie Gibb, who quit shortly before the fabricated report was published? Lord Austin takes a keen interest in the BBC's coverage of Israel, recently demanding that executives who oversaw a recent much-criticised Gaza programme 'should be sacked for the very serious professional and moral failings.' But of the professional and moral failings of the JC he has to date said nothing. Did Lord Faulks's team of investigators speak to any of the four distinguished columnists – David Baddiel, Jonathan Freedland, David Aaronovitch and Hadley Freeman – who refused to go on writing for the paper after the Elon Perry debacle? Their concerns about the standards at the paper went far beyond one dud article. What about speaking to another contributor (for more than 50 years), Professor Colin Schindler, who also decided he could no longer write for the paper after discovering a 'darker side' to the fabricated story? He wrote: 'This whole sorry affair reflected the JC's unquestioning willingness to accept anything that chimed with its sensationalist agenda.' At the time he quit, Freedland wrote: 'The latest scandal brings great disgrace on the paper – publishing fabricated stories and showing only the thinnest form of contrition – but it is only the latest. Too often, the JC reads like a partisan, ideological instrument, its judgements political rather than journalistic.' In his letter to Wallis Simons he added: 'The problem in this case is that there can be no real accountability because the JC is owned by a person or people who refuse to reveal themselves. As you know, I and others have long urged transparency, making that case to you privately – but nothing has happened.' And now nothing has happened all over again. There is still no real accountability. Looks like Lord Leveson was wasting his time.
