The Jewish Chronicle has come under criticism from Jewish groups after it published an article by Melanie Phillips claiming that Islamophobia is a bogus term that provides cover for antisemites.

Philips, who also writes for the Times, wrote in the newspaper that the entire concept of Islamophobia was “profoundly anti-Jew” and had been invented to mimic antisemitism, adding: “To equate it with the dehumanising, insane and essentially murderous outpourings of Jew-hatred is obscene.”

She said “the taunt of Islamophobia is used to silence any criticism of the Islamic world, including Islamic extremism” and “facilitates” antisemitism.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews said the publication of this piece was an error: “Anti-Muslim prejudice is very real and it is on the rise. Our community must stand as allies to all facing racism.”

In a statement issued following the uproar, the Jewish Chronicle’s editor, Stephen Pollard, did not express regret for publishing the piece but acknowledged it had been divisive.

“A number of people within the Jewish community, and friends of the community, have expressed their dismay – and anger – at its content. No editor of a serious publication wants such a reaction. The Jewish Chronicle does not seek to provoke but to inform and prompt sensible debate. So when there is such a reaction I take it very seriously and I apologise to any reader who is angered or upset by the piece.”

He said the article “reflects an argument about the origins and utility of the notion of Islamophobia, as opposed to anti-Muslim bigotry”, adding that he would be publishing a number of opposing views.

Last month, the newspaper was forced by the press regulator IPSO to issue a correction after it could not substantiate claims made in an article about alleged bullying of Jewish MP Louise Ellman, then with Labour, in Liverpool by a party activist.

The regulator concluded the Jewish Chronicle “had not been able to demonstrate that it had taken care over the accuracy of the article” on certain points, and its conduct during the subsequent investigation had been “unacceptable”.