Home Correspondent
Prominent British Palestinian surgeon, academic and human rights advocate Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah was formally cleared of professional misconduct on January 9, after a medical tribunal dismissed allegations of antisemitism and support for terrorism, ruling that the claims were unfounded and politically motivated.
The decision followed a three-day hearing before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS), convened after the General Medical Council (GMC) brought a complaint prompted by submissions from the pro-Israel legal advocacy group UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI).
Dr Abu-Sittah, a consultant plastic and reconstructive surgeon who has worked extensively in Gaza and other conflict zones, currently serves as the elected rector of the University of Glasgow.
He was accused of professional misconduct over a newspaper article and a series of historic social media posts, which UKLFI claimed amounted to antisemitism and endorsement of violence.
In a unanimous ruling, the tribunal dismissed all allegations.
Tribunal Chair, Ian Comfort, said the panel had assessed the material in full and rejected claims that selective quotation supported the accusations.
“The tribunal did not cherrypick quotations but considered the article in its entirety,” Comfort said, adding that the panel “could not identify anything that was antisemitic or supportive of terrorism or violence.”
Addressing a social media post cited in the complaint, the tribunal concluded that an “ordinary reader” would understand it as a reference to a historical anniversary, not as providing “material or moral aid” to a terrorist organisation.
Dr Abu-Sittah welcomed the ruling, describing the complaint as part of a coordinated attempt to silence criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza and the wider occupied Palestinian territory.
“This forms part of a broader lawfare strategy which aims to instrumentalise regulatory processes to intimidate, silence and exhaust those who speak out against injustice in Palestine,” he said. He revealed that the case represented the tenth complaint lodged against him by UKLFI to various institutions, including universities, professional regulators and public bodies, none of which have resulted in disciplinary action.
The verdict sparked sharply divided reactions. UKLFI condemned the outcome, describing the tribunal’s decision as “shocking” and reiterating its claim that Dr Abu-Sittah’s statements breached professional standards.
By contrast, Jewish Voices for Liberation welcomed the ruling, calling it “a significant rebuff to UKLFI” and praising the tribunal for remaining “unswayed by the general hysteria surrounding criticism of Israel.”
Legal observers and Palestine solidarity groups described the ruling as a landmark moment, warning that regulatory bodies are increasingly being used as battlegrounds in political disputes over Israel and Palestine.
The decision comes as UK Lawyers for Israel itself is under investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) following a formal complaint alleging that the group deployed a pattern of “vexatious and legally baseless” legal threats to suppress Palestine solidarity activism.
The complaint, filed by the Public Interest Law Centre and the European Legal Support Center, accuses UKLFI of abusing legal processes in a manner consistent with strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). The SRA has confirmed that the investigation is ongoing, though no findings have yet been published.
For Dr Abu-Sittah and his supporters, the tribunal’s ruling is seen as both a personal vindication and a wider challenge to the growing use of legal and regulatory mechanisms to police political speech on Palestine.
“This decision matters far beyond me,” he said. “It is about whether professionals are allowed to speak truthfully about war crimes and humanitarian catastrophe without being dragged through years of intimidation.”
Photo: Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah, a prominent British Palestinian surgeon, was formally cleared of professional misconduct on January 9 after a medical tribunal ruled that allegations of antisemitism and support for terrorism were unfounded and politically motivated. (Credit: Raşid Necati Aslım/AA)
