03918-25 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 IS 'DRUNK ON IMPUNITY', SAYS GAZA SURGEON”, published on 14 September 2025.

2. The article reported on comments made by a Palestinian doctor. The headline on the front-page was accompanied by a sub-headline, which read: “EXCLUSIVE: Glasgow University rector says attacks on six countries show the extent to which Netanyahu can act without fear of sanction”. A further sub-headline also referenced “attacks on six countries.”

3. The article opened by again reporting that “Israel has struck six countries in the last week”. It then reported:

“On September 17 and 18, 2024, Israel detonated explosives hidden in pagers and walkie-talkies in attacks intended to target Hezbollah fighters. They also killed 12 civilians – including children – and injured more than 3500 others.”

4. The article went on to report that “Maddox further listed Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Iran, Yemen, and Tunisia (where an aid flotilla was docked). Of those countries, all but Iran have been struck by Israel in the past week, Al Jazeera reported.”

5. The article also appeared online in substantively the same format, under the headline “Israel 'drunk on UK-gifted impunity' strikes six countries in one week”.

6. The complainant contacted the publication directly to complain on 14 September 2025. In an email to the editor, she said that the article breached Clause 1, as it reported that six countries had been attacked by Israel “in the last week”. The complainant said that the article made clear that this was inaccurate, as it said that Iran had not been struck by Israel in the last week. She also said Tunisia – one of the countries which the article claimed had been attacked - had confirmed that it had not been struck by Israel.

7. The complainant added that the article referenced someone called “Maddox”, without making clear who that individual was. The complainant said she thought that this meant readers of the article would not be able to assess the credibility of this individual.

8. The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 1 by reporting that “12 civilians” had been killed when “Israel detonated explosives hidden in pagers and walkie-talkies in September 2024”. The complainant said that the 12 who had died included combatants, and that the article breached Clause 1 by omitting to mention that combatants had also been killed in the attacks. The complainant considered that this omission gave the misleading impression that the attacks were indiscriminate, rather than targeted.

9. To support her position on this point, the complainant provided two news articles. One article said that “most of the 37 people” killed in the attacks “are believed to be fighters.” The other said that “Hezbollah announced the death of 16 members on Wednesday”.

10. The complainant also expressed concern omitted to reference posts published by the “Gaza surgeon” on social media, as well as further information about his background – which she thought would provide relevant context.

11. Eleven days later, the complainant complained to IPSO.

12. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. In support of its position, it provided the Al Jazeera article which the article under complaint referenced. The Al Jazeera article – which was published on 10 September 2025 – said that, “in just three days, Israel has carried out strikes in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Tunisia, Qatar and Yemen.” The publication said these were the six countries its article referenced.

13. However, it accepted that the article under complaint did not list the six countries – Qatar was not referred to in the article - and did not make clear who “Maddox” was. It said this was due to a production error, which had led to the following sentence being removed: “Bronwen Maddox, director of Chatham House, made reference to an Israeli air strike on Qatar”. On 1 October, the publication confirmed it had amended the online article to make this clear.

14. The publication also said that it was unaware of any investigation which had found that Israel had not struck Tunisia, and that investigations into the source of the attack appeared to be ongoing.

15. Turning to the reference to civilian casualties in the September 2024 attack, the publication said its figure came from the Lebanese government.

16. The complainant maintained that the article was inaccurate, as it did not list Qatar as one of the nations that had been attacked, and because an Israeli strike on Tunisia had not been confirmed.

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

17. Neither party disputed that the original article had omitted to reference that Qatar had reportedly been struck by Israel in the week leading to the article’s publication, meaning that only five of the countries which had been reportedly struck were listed in the article. The publication had said this was due to a production error

18. While the Committee regretted the production error which had led to a key line being omitted – as this line referenced Qatar as having been reportedly struck by Israel – it did not consider this reached the bar of a failure to take care over the accuracy of the disputed claim. The Committee considered this to be the case where the publication had been able to provide reporting to support its position that six countries - Qatar, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Yemen, and Tunisia - had been struck by Israel since 7 September 2025.

19. While the complainant disputed that Tunisia had been struck, the Committee noted that this country had been referenced by both Al Jazeera and Ms Maddox as having been struck. Where the publication had shown this, referencing Tunisia as one of the six countries did not reference a failure to take care. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 (i) on these points.

20. In circumstances where the publication had been able to provide two sources which indicated that Israel had attacked Tunisia, and in the absence of any official confirmation from the Tunisian government that this was not the case, the Committee did not consider that there were grounds to find that the article was significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted to report that six nations had been struck, or that Tunisia was one of these nations. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

21. The article did not claim that Iran had been struck by Israel in the week leading to the article’s publication. Rather, the article made clear Iran had not been struck in the prior week. Given this, the Committee did not consider that the article’s reference to Iran was inaccurate, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

22. While the original article did not make clear who “Maddox” was, the Committee did not consider this meant it was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted – it was not in dispute that an individual with this surname had made the comments attributed to them. There was no breach of Clause 1.

23. It did not appear to be in dispute that the Lebanese Government had said that twelve civilians had been killed in attacks in September 2024. Given this, the Committee did not consider that there were grounds to find that the article was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted to report this. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

24. The complainant had said that the article breached Clause 1 by omitting that combatants had also been killed in the pager and walkie-talkie attacks, as this gave the misleading impression that the operation was indiscriminate. The Committee noted that the article made clear that Hezbollah operatives were the target of the attack: “Israel detonated explosives hidden in pagers and walkie-talkies in attacks intended to target Hezbollah fighters.” Given this, the Committee did not consider that omitting that combatants had also been killed in the attacks gave the misleading impression that this was not a targeted operation. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1.

25. The selection and publication of material is a matter of editorial discretion, provided the Code is not otherwise breached. Given this, the Committee did not consider that omitting further information about the Gaza surgeon meant the article breached Clause 1.

Conclusions

26. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 25/09/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 04/03/2026

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Reviewer found that the IPSO process was flawed, as the decision did not deal with one of the complainant’s main areas of complaint – whether the article inaccurately reported that Iran had been struck by Israel. The complaint was therefore returned to the Committee to reconsider the complaint, and the Committee issued an amended ruling.

After the Committee issued its amended ruling, the complainant again complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling the complaint. The complainant’s second review was not upheld.