There has been some controversy over the advert for the DEC Gaza appeal in this week’s paper.
I understand why some people are angry and upset and I thought it important to respond.
This is an advert, and not an expression of the JC's view. We keep editorial coverage entirely separate from our commercial operations.
As editor, I am not responsible for any ads which appear in the paper. It is a critical part of our editorial independence that we do not allow advertisers to have any influence at all on the paper.
The ad was approved by the chairman of the JC, who has no involvement in editorial decisions, as an ad for humanitarian aid which nowhere makes political or partisan points.
Both I as editor and the JC are entirely supportive of Operation Protective Edge, as our coverage has demonstrated. Almost alone in the British media the JC has stressed Israel’s right to defend herself and sought to explain why Israel was faced with no choice but to take action in Gaza.
There is, clearly, a humanitarian cost to that action. But I do not accept the figures touted around much of the media about the level of civilian casualties – many are, I am sure, terrorists.
This is not a JC-backed appeal. We have no involvement in it beyond running an ad, which has appeared in most British newspapers.
Even if you profoundly disagree with the ad appearing in the paper, I hope this will go some way to explaining its presence and that it is in no way part of our editorial stance.
So don't worry readers of the Jewish Chronicle, your weekly community newspaper doesn't do humanitarian when the most moral army in the world has created the humanitarian need.
So what's weird? The apology by Stephen Pollard is dated August 14, 2014. Now, whilst the JC is dated for the Friday it appears in most shops and arrives at most subscribers' homes it might appear in some shops and arrive in some homes on the Thursday. It's delivered to my house on Fridays and I never see it on a Thursday.
So who was doing the complaining? It could only be people from among the small minority of readers who get their copy on a Thursday, if such people exist.
Let's assume they do exist. How many could have complained?
Ok, let's assume they don't exist and that no one gets their JC before Friday. How did the complainers know about the ad if they hadn't seen the paper?
Now go see Stephen Pollard's explanation of how the ad, that appears to have appeared the day after he apologised to readers for its appearance, er, appeared at all.
The ad was approved by the chairman of the JC, who has no involvement in editorial decisions, as an ad for humanitarian aid which nowhere makes political or partisan points.Now people might think the ad was approved for humanitarian reasons but Pollard is simply contrasting humanitarian with political or partisan, he is not saying that the ad was run by the JC for any humanitarian reason. Higher up the piece he has already said, "We keep editorial coverage entirely separate from our commercial operations." In other words, this was a commercial decision.
But now look at the Beeb. Now I'm surprised that the Beeb has run this story at all since it puts the Zionist movement in such an unfavourable light.
First they let the JC lie for itself:
The weekly newspaper said running the advert was "meant as a purely humanitarian gesture".Then typically it gave Israel's version of events about the attack on Gaza:
The Israelis launched a military operation on 8 July to stop militant attacks from Gaza.But then comes a gem:
After a DEC advert featured in this week's Jewish Chronicle (JC), a Facebook page was set up calling on readers to boycott the title until it issued a "full apology".A Facebook page? The plot thickens....
And what do we see on the Facebook page? Well, there are 182 likes. Did Pollard really make the Jewish community look so uncaring for the sake of 182 Facebook likes?
Back to the Beeb:
Meanwhile, Israel's embassy in the UK issued a statement in which it said its own concern about the DEC appeal "stems from the fact that the list of charities on the DEC includes Islamic Relief Worldwide, which has been designated in Israel recently as an unlawful association, for providing support and funnelling funds to Hamas, a terror group designated in the UK.
"Surely this must raise cause for concern for the public donating money for children, when one of the donors has been officially declared to be using that money to support a recognized terror group," it said.I would guess that this brings us closer to why Stephen Pollard has flaunted the sheer cruelty of Zionism. It cannot possibly have been 182 or whatever many ordinary Joes complaining via Facebook. Last I heard the JC had a circulation of about 30,000 and I remember reading that advertisers like the JC because it passes through the hands of every literate member of every household to which it is delivered. 182 is a pretty small proportion of its total readership. But the State of Israel, now that's a different story. The JC exists to promote the interests of the entity. I reckon it was a telling off the JC received from the Israeli embassy that had Stephen Pollard suggesting his readers are a bunch of Nazis. The only other explanation might, just might, be he doesn't like the Chair of the JC and dangerous "humanitarian" was the only putdown he could think of.