Are The Jewish Chronicle's owners stifling any criticism of Netanyahu's actions?

More curious goings-on at The Fewish Chronicle (The FC), 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 walking out last year – and is now raising questions about the attitude of its new editor.

- ALAN RUSBRIDGER

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 Benjamin 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 17 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.