Who gets to speak? Campaign groups, regulator referrals and the doctors on the receiving end

|HWAC
A vintage microphone taped over beside a stethoscope, symbolising silenced healthcare workers

This is an HWAC opinion piece. The facts below are drawn from the published sources listed at the end.

Since October 2023, a handful of campaign groups have played a highly visible part in bringing doctors' posts about Israel and Palestine to employers and regulators. They say they are protecting Jewish patients. HWAC is clear that antisemitism is real and must be confronted. But we also believe doctors are entitled to ask hard questions about a system in which their careers can be put on hold by organised complaints, while the complainants face no comparable scrutiny.

UK Lawyers for Israel

According to the Guardian, UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) brought the case of Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah to the GMC's attention. In January 2026 a Medical Practitioners Tribunal found the facts not proved and could not identify anything antisemitic or supportive of terrorism or violence. Dr Abu-Sittah said the complaint was "part of a broader lawfare strategy which aims to instrumentalise the regulatory processes to intimidate, silence and exhaust those who speak out against injustice in Palestine". He said it was the second complaint UKLFI had made against him, and "the 10th complaint made by them overall". UKLFI responded that it was "shocking that the tribunal has found it acceptable for doctors to commemorate acts of violence and pay tribute to terrorists". The GMC has since resolved to appeal.

Not every UKLFI complaint fails. The BBC reported on 3 October 2026 that UKLFI complained in October 2023 about the surgeon Muhammad Khalil, and that a tribunal found his posts "objectively antisemitic" and supportive of violence. He was suspended for a minimum of nine months.

Campaign Against Antisemitism

The Guardian reported that the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) was among those who complained about Dr Rahmeh Aladwan, who was suspended in November 2025 by an interim orders tribunal pending a GMC investigation. Interim orders tribunals do not reach conclusions on the allegations. Her lawyer told the hearing the posts "fell into the category of legitimate political speech and debate", and she denies making racist or hate speech. In October 2026 the CAA accused the GMC of "sweeping antisemitism under the carpet", according to Doctors.net.uk. The GMC rejected that, saying it had taken regulatory action involving around 30 of the roughly 170 doctors complained about.

GnasherJew

GnasherJew, an online campaign, says on its website that it has "exposed over 20 doctors for antisemitism and/or support of terrorism". On at least one profile page it urges readers to complain to the doctor's employers "and also to report him to the GMC". In a thread on X it published what it called "a list of over 20 U.K. doctors to avoid", and said the GMC is "utterly useless" and should be "disbanded". These are the group's own claims about named individuals. HWAC has not verified them and does not repeat them.

Who gets to speak?

Doctors are held to professional standards that campaign groups are not. That is how regulation works, and we do not suggest these groups break any rules by campaigning. But the contrast is stark. A doctor can spend years under investigation over a post about Gaza, and be cleared, and still face an appeal. A campaign can publicly label more than 20 doctors and call for the regulator to be disbanded, and answer to no one. We think that imbalance deserves scrutiny:

  • Is it healthy for clinicians' speech about Palestine to be policed largely through complaints from organisations with a strong position on one side of the conflict?
  • When tribunals clear doctors, as in the Abu-Sittah and Elwan cases, what redress is there for the years spent under investigation?
  • Will the GMC publish how many complaints come from organised campaigns, and how many of those succeed?

According to the Regulation Resolution analysis, the GMC's own 2024 statement says that using referrals to discourage comment or target individuals is "absolutely unacceptable". HWAC stands with every healthcare worker who speaks up for Palestinian lives, and we call on the GMC to prove, with data, that it means those words.

Sources

More news
An open book with lines struck through in red pen, a red pen, a stethoscope and an olive sprig on a dark desk, symbolising a flawed definition and healthcare

The IHRA definition is failing. What would a fair definition protecting Palestinians from racism look like?

|HWAC
IHRA's own drafter, senior lawyers and over 100 human rights groups have warned about its flaws. How it can be challenged, and HWAC's draft definition of anti-Palestinianism.
A stethoscope on a wooden desk beside a microphone bound in tape and a gavel resting on a stack of papers, symbolising silenced professionals

Teachers warn of a chilling grip: what the Bell Review shares with Mann's NHS crackdown

|HWAC
The NEU says recommending IHRA for schools will chill classroom discussion of Gaza. Healthcare workers have heard this before, in Lord Mann's NHS and GMC review.
An old brass balance scale on a dark desk, one pan weighed down by a heavy stack of files and the other almost empty, with a stethoscope beside it

Weighed differently? A case-by-case look at how speech on Gaza is policed in UK healthcare

|HWAC
Pro-Palestine clinicians have faced suspensions, referrals and years of proceedings. What happened when colleagues made remarks about Palestinians or Muslims? We set out the reported cases side by side.
An open book with lines struck through in red pen, a red pen, a stethoscope and an olive sprig on a dark desk, symbolising a flawed definition and healthcare

The IHRA definition is failing. What would a fair definition protecting Palestinians from racism look like?

|HWAC
IHRA's own drafter, senior lawyers and over 100 human rights groups have warned about its flaws. How it can be challenged, and HWAC's draft definition of anti-Palestinianism.