00003-25 Kelly v The Jewish Chronicle

Summary of Complaint

1. John Kelly complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Jewish Chronicle breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Supporting the Palestinian cause is a very big mistake”, published on 3 January 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on page 17, in the newspaper’s ”Let’s Talk” opinion section – was written by a regular columnist, and set out their views on support with the UK for “the Palestinian cause”. It said:

“It seems incredible that thousands of people in Britain and the West are parroting falsehoods about Israel that aren’t only outright lies and wilful distortions – such as accusing the IDF of killing journalists and hospital patients when these are actually terrorists – but are also demonstrably ridiculous, such as the claim that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, where the population has increased by 2.02 per cent since the start of the war (according to the CIA factbook).”

3. The article also appeared online, under the headline “If you support the Palestinian cause in any form, you’re facilitating Jew-hate.” The online version of the article was published on 31 December 2024; the headline was later amended to read: “The truth of the Palestinian cause”.

4. A link to the article was also posted on the publication’s X page. This link was accompanied by the caption “If you support the Palestinian cause in any form, you’re facilitating Jew-hate”.

5. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. First, he said that – contrary to the article’s claim that the population in Gaza had “increased by 2.02 per cent since the start of the war – there were no reliable figures for population change in Gaza since October 2023, given the then-ongoing conflict in the region. At any rate, the complainant said, population growth had no bearing on whether or not a genocide was occurring.

6. The complainant also said that there were reliable accounts of journalists and hospital patients, with no evidence of links to terrorism, having been killed in Gaza. To support his position, the complainant provided web-pages from Reporters Without Borders, Reuters, Al-Jazeera, the Washington Post, Time, and the Committee to Protect Journalists. These web-pages either set out the names and backgrounds of journalists who died, or were news stories refuting claims that journalists who had been killed were terrorists.

7. The complainant also said that there were reports of medical workers being injured or killed by sniper fire while working in hospitals, and that several organisations had criticised Israel for killing healthcare workers, including Medicins Sans Fronteires. The complainant also said that “[a]ttacks on healthcare facilities have been widespread in Gaza, and a UN inquiry concluded that these actions include war crimes” and that “. Claims that healthcare facilities have been used as command centres by Hamas have been widely debunked.”

8. The publication accepted that the reference to population figures within Gaza was misleading, as the CIA factbook figures were actually based on an estimate. It said it had published a reader’s letter on 10 January 2025, which made this clear. The letter, which the publication provided to IPSO, read as follows:

“Melanie Phillips writes that the claim that Israel is carrying out genocide in Gaza is ‘demonstrably ridiculous’ because the CIA factbook shows the Gaza population has ‘increased by 2.02 per cent since the start of the war’.

What she does not mention is that the CIA factbook says these are estimated figures – it actually states ‘2.02% (2024 est.)’. The figures are the estimated projections, sourced from the US Bureau of the Census and estimated in August 2023 – before the war started.

The CIA factbook explains the method it uses to estimate population figures, and states that the population figure can be ‘...based on assumptions about future trends’ and that ‘This annual estimate does not reflect sudden population shifts due to conflicts, natural disasters, or other unexpected events.’”

9. Further to this, the publication also amended the online article on 9 January 2025 – three days after being made aware of the complainant’s concerns - to remove the 2.02% figure and to add the following clarification at the foot of the online version of the article:

“Clarification: An earlier version of this article contained the line: ‘[In Gaza] where the population has increased by 2.02 per cent since the start of the war (according to the CIA factbook).’ However this was misleading as the CIA factbook figures are an estimate, and ‘does not reflect sudden population shifts due to conflicts, natural disasters, or other unexpected events.’ We apologise for this error.”

10. The publication said that the above correction did not appear in the print edition of the newspaper, as it considered that the published reader’s letter sufficiently corrected the record.

11. The publication also noted that the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) had said that the population of Gaza had declined by 6% since the start of the conflict. However, it said this figure did not take into account births in the region, and it included – in the 6% figure – people who were missing, and therefore it was unclear whether these individuals had died, emigrated, or had been missed off the statistics for another reason.

12. Given this, while the publication considered that the article was misleading on this point – as it did not make clear that the population figure was an estimate – it did not consider that it was significantly misleading. It said this was the case as the fact that the figure was an estimate did not affect the wider point being made, which was that “the media [was] making wild accusations of genocide without proof”.

13. However, the publication did not accept that the article was inaccurate on the further point raised by the complainant. It said that the article’s author was not claiming that every journalist and hospital patient killed in Gaza was a terrorist. Rather, the point being conveyed was that – on many occasions – the IDF had countered claims that it had killed journalists and hospital patients by setting out its position that they were targeting terrorists, and this was rarely reported.

14. The complainant said that the article was “clearly” dismissing any claim that the IDF had killed civilian journalists and hospital patients, and that the columnist had not provided any examples of combatants disguised as journalists or hospital patients – beyond “vague IDF claims, many of which have been debunked or cast heavily in doubt”. He also said that, despite the fact that the reference to population growth figures had been removed from the article, these figures had been used to support the writer’s position that genocide was not occurring in Gaza. However, he said, the UN convention’s definition of genocide made no reference to population growth in deciding whether a genocide was occurring. He therefore said the article was misleading as to how genocide was defined.

15. The publication said it did not agree with the complainant’s interpretation of the column. Notwithstanding this, it invited the complainant to write a letter for publication, making a case against the views expressed in the column. It also provided links to news reports from The Times of Israel, The Times of India, the New York Post, The Jerusalem Post, and the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies. These variously reported on claims and allegations that Hamas combatants had disguised themselves as journalists and hospital staff.

16. The complainant said that only a published retraction and apology would be able to resolve his concerns. He also said that the articles provided by the publication were based on IDF sources, “with no apparent corroboration.”

17. The publication said that the removal of the column would, in its view, be a restriction of its columnist’s right to express strongly held views, and declined to retract the column. However, it said it had shared the complainant’s views with the columnist and the relevant editor.

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 noted that its role was not to make a finding on whether the conduct of Israel in the course of the conflict in Gaza amounted to a genocide – nor was it in a position to make such a finding. Rather, its role was to determine whether - in a column setting out an individual’s views on the conflict and UK society’s responses to the conflict – the Editors’ Code had been breached.

19. The article reported that, “according to the CIA Factbook”, the population in Gaza had grown by 2.2%. It was not in dispute that the CIA Factbook did say this, notwithstanding that this was an estimate. It was also not in dispute that the figure did not take into account population changes which had occurred since the outbreak of hostilities in the region in October 2023. Given this, the question for the Committee was whether the publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate or misleading information on this point.

20. The Committee was mindful that the source of the disputed figure – the CIA factbook – was, on the face of it, clearly a reliable source. It was part of a government organisation, and would be in a position to have the most up-to-date and reliable information. While, in this case, the figure was outdated, the Committee did not consider that relying on population figures from this source represented a failure to take care. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 (i).

21. However, the Committee considered it to be significantly misleading to present the figures in this context, given that they were not intended to take account of any impact of the war on Gaza’s population. In the circumstances, remedial action was required.

22. In the next edition of its print newspaper – following the original article under complaint – a reader’s letter had appeared. This was the earliest possible opportunity for the letter to appear in print. This letter explained the nature of the estimate and clarified that “The figures are the estimated projections, sourced from the US Bureau of the Census and estimated in August 2023 – before the war started.” The letter appeared on the newspaper’s regular readers letters section. Taking all of these factors into account – the wording, prominence, and promptness of the letter – the Committee was satisfied that the publication had provided an appropriate opportunity to reply to a significant inaccuracy as called for under the terms of Clause 1 (iii) and concluded that no further action was required to comply with the terms of Clause 1.

23. Turning to the online version of the article, the Committee noted that – three days after being made aware of the complainant’s concerns – the disputed figure had been removed, and the following footnote added to the article:

“Clarification: An earlier version of this article contained the line: ‘[In Gaza] where the population has increased by 2.02 per cent since the start of the war (according to the CIA factbook).’ However this was misleading as the CIA factbook figures are an estimate, and ‘does not reflect sudden population shifts due to conflicts, natural disasters, or other unexpected events.’ We apologise for this error.”

24. The Committee was satisfied that the wording both set out the original inaccuracy and made the correct position clear. It had been published promptly – three days after it had been made aware of the complaint – and in a suitably prominent position, at the foot of the article, which had been amended to remove the inaccurate information. The Committee therefore considered that the online correction addressed the terms of Clause 1 (ii), and there was no breach of this sub-Clause.

25. The complainant had expressed concern that, by referencing the supposed population growth in Gaza in conjunction with “the claim that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza”, the article was misleading as to how genocide is defined. In considering this aspect of the complaint, the Committee was mindful of the context of the article: it was a clearly distinguished opinion piece, by a regular columnist, setting out their polemic views on the conflict in Gaza. In this context, the Committee did not consider that the reference to population figures, in and of itself was misleading; the article did not claim that population growth figures had any bearing on how organisations such as the UN defined genocide. Rather, it set out the writer’s own view that the alleged population growth was not compatible with claims of genocide. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

26. The article said that “people in Britain and the West are parroting falsehoods about Israel that aren’t only outright lies and wilful distortions – such as accusing the IDF of killing journalists and hospital patients when these are actually terrorists”. The complainant considered this was effectively a claim that all journalists and hospital patients killed during the conflict in Gaza were “actually terrorists”; the publication had countered this by saying that the point being conveyed was that the IDF had countered claims that it had killed journalists and hospital patients by setting out its position that they were targeting terrorists.

27. The Committee considered that the sentence under dispute was somewhat ambiguous and could reasonably be read both in the way interpreted by the complainant, as well as in the manner the publication suggested. However, while the Committee accepted that the sentence could have been more clearly phrased, it did not accept that any ambiguity to be inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information: it was accepted by both parties that the IDF had countered at least some accusations that it had killed journalists and hospital patients by saying that some of the individuals who had been killed had links to Hamas, and the disputed sentence did not say that this claim had been made about all journalists and health workers killed during the course of the conflict.

28. Whether or not it was correct for the IDF to claim that the people who had been killed had links for Hamas was not a matter for the Committee to rule on. However, it was not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted for this claim to be referenced in the article. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

29. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

30. N/A

Date complaint received: 01/01/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 06/05/2025