04566-25 Moshelian v The National

Summary of Complaint

1. Michelle Moshelian complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The National breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Expect a huge drive to suppress Israeli accountability over slaughter in Gaza”, published on 11 October 2025.

2. The article was an opinion piece, written by a regular columnist, which asked “what next for the people of Gaza?” 

3. The article referenced “Israel’s genocide”, and “one of the great crimes of our age.” The article also said that Israel had “lied and lied again that it was not blocking food and other life essentials” and that “Israel really did exterminate tens of thousands of civilians – very plausibly in the six figures”. It then said: “Israel really did deliberately starve a civilian population and wipe almost the entire territory off the Earth […] its snipers really did repeatedly shoot children in the head and chest […] Israel really did systematically torture and rape innocent people kidnapped by its soldiers”.

4. The article also appeared online in substantively the same format, under the headline “Expect a push to suppress Israeli accountability over Gaza genocide”. 

5. The complainant said that the article breached Clause 1 in several ways. Firstly, she said that the article’s reference to a “genocide” perpetrated by Israel was inaccurate, and presented as fact. She said that the only legal body mandated to make a finding as to whether genocide was being perpetrated in Israel was the international Court of Justice, and it had made no finding to this effect. She added that the UK Government had concluded on 1 September 2025 – prior to the article’s publication - that it had “not concluded that Israel is acting with […] intent” to destroy a group, in part or in whole, which was a key component of genocide. She added that the reference to “one of the great crimes of our age” implied that the conflict in Gaza was an “unparalleled atrocity”. She said this was “absurd” given that there were other conflicts ongoing, and that these other conflicts had led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

6. The complainant also said that there was no evidence that Israel had “lied and lied again that it was not blocking food and other life essentials”. She said that, when Israel had blocked aid from entering Gaza, it had been open about this and about its reasons for doing so.

7. The complainant then said that it was inaccurate to report that Israel had “exterminate[d] tens of thousands of civilians”. She said this implied a “deliberate, systematic intent to eradicate a group, akin to genocide”. She also said that it was inaccurate to report that the number of civilians “exterminate[d]” was “very plausibly in the six figures”; she said that Palestine’s own death tolls said that 70,000 people had died in the conflict, and that this figure included combatants and those who had died as a result of Hamas’ actions.

8. The complainant added that it was inaccurate to report Israel had “deliberately starve[d] a civilian population”. She said that 65 people had died of malnutrition in Gaza between 7 October 2023 and 30 June 2025, and that more people die of malnutrition in the UK annually. She also said that “widely published images of Gazans celebrating the ceasefire make it entirely clear that the population is not starved.” She then said that the reference to wiping the territory off the earth was a “blatantly untrue and absurd accusation”.

9. The complainant said that it was also inaccurate to report that Israel’s snipers had “repeatedly” shot “children in the head and chest” and that Israel “systematically torture[d] and rape[d] innocent people kidnapped by its soldiers”. She said that these were specific and serious allegations, and that a recent claim that a child had been shot in the head by an Israeli soldier had been debunked after the child was found safe and well.

10. As part of IPSO’s assessment process – when it decides whether there are grounds to investigate the complaint - IPSO provided the complainant with a press release from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The press release said as follows:

“Reports of alleged torture and sexual violence in Israel’s Sde Teiman prison are grossly illegal and revolting, but they only represent the tip of the iceberg, independent human rights experts warned today

[…]

The experts received substantiated reports of widespread abuse, torture, sexual assault and rape, amid atrocious inhumane conditions, with at least 53 Palestinians apparently dying as a result in 10 months.”

11. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code, and turned to the question of whether Israel had “lied and lied again that it was not blocking food and other life essentials”, as the article claimed. To support the article’s claim, it provided a news report, published by another platform in October 2024, which said that “Israel ha[d] denied obstructing humanitarian aid deliveries to Gaza” following a “strongly worded letter sent by the Biden administration” which “accuse[d] Israel of halting commercial imports to Gaza, denying or impeding nearly 90% of humanitarian movements between the north and south in September, placing excessive restrictions on dual-use goods, and instituting new vetting and customs requirements for humanitarian staff.”

12. The publication also provided IPSO with a news report, published by a different news provider in July 2024. The news report was about a study published in the medical journal Lancet, which the report summarised as finding that the “accumulative effects of Israel’s war on Gaza could mean the true death toll could reach more than 186,000 people”. The publication said this supported the article claim that the death toll could “very plausibly” be in the six-figures.

13. Turning next to the article’s claim that Israel “deliberately starve[d] a civilian population”, the publication provided a news report from a different news organisation, published in August 2025, which reported that “[f]amine is taking place in Gaza - just a short drive away from hundreds of trucks of aid sitting idly outside its borders.” The article provided by the publication went on to report that the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) had published a report which said “that it has found that people living in the Gaza City area are experiencing famine conditions of ‘starvation, destitution, and death’. It also finds that starvation is spreading rapidly – with famine expected to be in much of the rest of Gaza in September [2025], on current trends.” The provided article also reported that the “UN and aid organisations say that despite Israel loosening some of its restrictions on food getting into the Gaza Strip, it still places significant impediments and obstructions in being able to collect and distribute aid.”

14. The publication also provided a news report from October 2024, which reported that a US surgeon had:

“claimed that Israeli snipers are deliberately targeting children in Gaza. [He] said that while he was volunteering at the European hospital of Khan Younis in southern Gaza earlier this year, he ‘saw two children that were shot twice’. He added: ‘No child gets shot twice by mistake.’”

15. The publication also noted its position that the article as a whole was clearly distinguished as comment, and attributed to a well-known columnist. It added that its view was that it was “entirely legitimate for a columnist to give his view that the scale of destruction amounts to Palestine being wiped almost off the Earth.”

16. The complainant said that the Lancet study referenced by the publication dealt with indirect deaths. She said that such deaths did not constitute extermination. She also said that the Lancet study was a projection, and that presenting it as a near certainty misrepresented it as established fact. She added that the news report provided to support the claim that Israel’s snipers “really did repeatedly shoot children in the head and chest” was based on the testimony of a single individual.

17. The complainant also said that the organisations referenced in the reporting provided by the publication were not neutral; one had been warned by the UK Charity Commission “for breaching impartiality over anti-Israel campaigns”.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

18. The Committee first wished to note its remit: its role was to decide whether the article under complaint breached the Editors’ Code. Its role was not to adjudicate on the actions of Israel, or to rule on whether allegations of misconduct by Israeli soldiers were substantiated – and it was not in a position to make such a finding.

19. The article had referred to Israel’s actions in Gaza as a genocide. The Committee noted that, at the time it considered the complaint, the International Court of Justice was in the process of considering allegations of genocide brought against Israel.

20. As noted above, the Committee was not in a position to adjudicate on the actions of Israel – this included determining whether or not Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. Absent a legal ruling to this effect, the Committee was not in a position to determine whether the article was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted on this point.

21. The Committee then turned to the remainder of the points raised by the complainant. Before doing so, however, it wished to note that the Code makes clear that the press can editorialise and campaign, and does not forbid newspapers from publishing article which seek to shock or challenge.

22. The article had referred to Israel’s actions in Israel as “one of the great crimes of our age” and had said it had “wipe[d] almost the entire territory off the Earth”. While the Committee acknowledged that this had been expressed in strident terms, it considered that – in the context of a clearly-distinguished comment piece, setting out a well-known columnist’s views on Israel’s actions in Gaza – this was clearly distinguished from fact, and as the writer’s subjective view of Israel’s actions during the conflict. Where comment was clearly distinguished from fact, there was not breach of Clause 1.

23. It was not in dispute that tens of thousands of people living in Gaza had died during the conflict. However, the complainant said that the article was inaccurate to report use the word “exterminate” in reference to such deaths. In this case, the Committee again considered that the use of the phrase “exterminate” was clearly distinguished as the writer’s view of Israel’s actions. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

24. The article had said that “very plausibly” the death toll in Gaza was in the six-figures. To support its position on this point, the publication had provided referenced modelling published in Lancet, which reportedly said the “accumulative effects of Israel’s war on Gaza could mean the true death toll could reach more than 186,000 people”. While the complainant has expressed concern that the article had reported the six-figure claim as a near certainty, the Committee considered that it was adequately distinguished as a possible death toll, given the article said it was “very plausibly” in the six-figures. The Committee was therefore satisfied that this was presented as conjecture, and the publication had clearly set out the factual basis for this conjecture. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

25. The publication had provided a news report from October 2024, which said that “Israel ha[d] denied obstructing humanitarian aid deliveries to Gaza” following a “strongly worded letter sent by the Biden administration” which “accuse[d] Israel of halting commercial imports to Gaza, denying or impeding nearly 90% of humanitarian movements between the north and south in September, placing excessive restrictions on dual-use goods, and instituting new vetting and customs requirements for humanitarian staff.” Given this, the Committee was satisfied that the newspaper had taken care over the columnist’s claim that Israel had “lied and lied again that it was not blocking food and other life essentials”, and that this was not – particularly in the context of a clearly distinguished comment-piece – significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

26. The complainant had also disputed the article’s reference to Israel “deliberately starv[ing] a civilian population”, as more people die of malnutrition in the UK annually and because “widely published images of Gazans celebrating the ceasefire make it entirely clear that the population is not starved.” While the Committee understood the complainant did not accept that there was a famine in Gaza, it did not appear to be in dispute that an international body responsible for identifying famines – the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) – found that people living in the Gaza City area were experiencing famine conditions of “starvation, destitution, and death”, and that was famine expected to be in “much of the rest of Gaza in September [2025], on current trends.” Where it was not in dispute that the IPC had declared a famine in Gaza, the Committee was satisfied that the publication had taken care over the accuracy of the article’s reporting on this point, and that it was not significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

27. The complainant had said that it was also inaccurate to report that Israel’s snipers had “repeatedly” shot “children in the head and chest” and that Israel “systematically torture[d] and rape[d] innocent people kidnapped by its soldiers”.

28. The Committee noted the difficulty on reporting on ongoing conflicts – the natural flow of information available to journalists reporting on the conflict will be impeded, particularly so in cases where the free movement of journalists is restricted. The Committee took this into account when considering the complaint.

29. Notwithstanding this, other news organisations had reported on claims that children had been deliberately targeted by Israeli soldiers, while the OHCHR had publicly expressed concern regarding “substantiated reports of widespread abuse, torture, sexual assault and rape” in an Israeli prison which held Palestinian individuals. The complainant did not appear to have first-hand knowledge of the alleged attacks on children, or of the conditions in the prison – her position was speculative on these points. Given this, and in the context of a clearly-distinguished opinion piece – written by a writer who clearly opposed Israel’s actions in Gaza, and was heavily critical of the actions undertaken by the Israeli government and military - the Committee did not consider that the article breached Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

30. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

31. N/A

Date complaint received: 11/10/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 27/01/2026