05356-25 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 “Israel halts Gaza aid transfers / Israel halts aid into Gaza as tensions mount”, published on 20 October 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on pages two and three - reported on the transfer of aid to Gaza following a ceasefire agreement between Palestine and Israel. The article reported that: “Israel’s military said earlier yesterday that troops came under fire from Hamas militants in southern Gaza. Meanwhile, health officials said at least 19 Palestinians were killed by Israeli strikes in central and southern Gaza. Israel’s military said it had struck dozens of what it called Hamas targets. It also said its forces struck ’terrorists’ approaching troops in Beit Lahiya in the north.”

3. The article also reported that “Israel’s military said its troops were fired on in areas of Rafah city that are Israeli-controlled, according to agreed-upon ceasefire lines. No injuries to soldiers were reported.” It further said that the “handover of remains is a major issue in the ceasefire’s first phase”. It also reported that a Hamas spokesman “said late Saturday the second phase of negotiations ‘requires national consensus’”. It then said, “Hamas, which accuses Israel of multiple ceasefire violations, said communication with its remaining units in Rafah had been cut off for months”.

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 to claim that "[n]o injuries to soldiers were reported", in reference to Israeli troops in Rafah. She said reports confirmed that two Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers were killed and several others wounded in the incident. She provided the Prime Minster’s announcement on the Israeli government’s website to support her position. It read:

"On behalf of the entire people of Israel, my wife and I send our heartfelt condolences to the families of the [two soldiers] of blessed memory – who fell in the difficult incident in Rafah.

I also send wishes for a speedy recovery to our wounded in that incident. [The two soldiers] fought valiantly against the Hamas murderers to protect the security of Israel. Their courage and heroism will be cherished in our hearts forever.

May their memory be for a blessing."

5. The complainant said that the article’s reference to "what [Israel’s military] called Hamas targets" – when reporting on the number of Palestinian people killed in Israeli strikes – cast unnecessary doubt about the IDF’s statements, while the Palestinian death toll was presented without similar qualification. She also said the use of quotation marks around the word “terrorists” implied doubt about Israel’s description of the individuals. She said this was biased and implied scepticism toward Israel’s claims.

6. In addition, the complainant said the article was inaccurate to report that Hamas had “accuse[d] Israel of multiple ceasefire violations" without referencing Hamas’s own alleged ceasefire violations. She said the article was biased by presenting Hamas’s accusations without qualification while repeatedly questioning Israel’s claims.

7. The complainant said it was misleading for the article to refer to phases of the ceasefires. She said the “Trump plan” for the ceasefire did not explicitly outline distinct phases. She said this misrepresented the agreed framework.

8. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. In regard to its reporting of IDF soldier fatalities, it said it had done its due diligence. It added that the report was sourced from Press Association, and was accurate at the time it was sent to its print press, as no injuries to soldiers had been reported at that time. It noted that it later published another article, which reported on the soldier’s deaths.

9. In regard to the article’s reference to ceasefire “phases”, the newspaper said this was widely used language when reporting on the ceasefire. To support its position, it provided an article from a different news provider, which also referred to the “phases”. It said the Trump administration’s own description made clear there were various stages and provided an X post posted by an affiliate of the White House, which summarised the plan using a numbered list. The lists did not use the term “phases”.

10. The complainant said the article was published on 20 October and referred to “yesterday”, which she said suggested the piece was written or updated on 20 October. She said therefore, the newspaper should have been aware of the Prime Minister’s statement of 19 October, which confirmed the deaths.

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

11. On 19 October, on the day before the article was published, Israel’s Prime Minister had issued a statement on the Prime Minister’s Office website that two Israeli soldiers had died in Rafah City. The time at which the statement became available on the website was not known to the Committee.

12. In reporting that “[n]o injuries to soldiers were reported”, the publication had relied on copy from a reputable news agency which it said, at the time the article was written, had confirmed that no injuries to soldiers had been reported. The Committee was mindful that the article was reporting on an unfolding story of a conflict abroad, and of the inherent difficulties in reporting on such a situation, particularly in circumstances where the free movement of journalists may be restricted. As such, the Committee was content that - in the circumstances of the case – there had not been a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

13. The Committee first noted that the article said that no injuries had “been reported”, rather than stating definitively that there had been no injuries. In addition, the Committee acknowledged the complainant’s position that, at some point on the day before publication of the article, the Israeli Prime Minister had released a statement in which he had announced the deaths of two soldiers. However, during the course of the investigation the Committee had not been provided with copies of any press reports which, at the time the article had gone to print, had reported that soldiers had been injured. In these circumstances, the Committee considered that the article was not significantly inaccurate on this point so as to require correction. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

14. The Committee next considered the article’s reference to “what [the IDF] called Hamas targets" and the reference to “terrorists” being placed in quotation marks. In circumstances where this was how the IDF had referred to the individuals who had been struck, however, the Committee did not consider that the article was inaccurate on this point.

15. While the complainant had expressed concern that the above descriptions were biased, this did not engage the terms of Clause 1, in circumstances where the Editors’ Code does not prohibit newspapers from being biased or partisan, provided the Code is not otherwise breached. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

16. Turning to the omission of Hamas’ alleged ceasefire violations, the Committee noted that newspapers are entitled to select which information they publish, provided the Code is not otherwise breached. Given this, omitting to report on Hamas ceasefire violations did not breach Clause 1.

17. In regard to the article’s reference to the ceasefire’s “first phases” and “second phase of negotiations”, the Committee noted that the publication had provided an article from a reputable news source which referred to the ceasefire in this way. In any event, the Committee did not consider that it was inaccurate to refer to stages of an agreement as a phase. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

18. The complaint was not upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 20/10/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 25/02/2026

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.