03649-25 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 “WHO IS BEHIND 'SNP FUELLING ANTISEMITISM' CLAIMS?”, published on 8 September 2025.

2. The article reported on a group which had “written to the Scottish Government accusing First Minister John Swinney of fanning the flames of antisemitism.” It also reported that a letter, written by the group’s director

“claims that accusing Israel of committing genocide is a ‘modern-day blood libel’ and argues that the charge can only be proven in a court by ‘producing irrefutable evidence of intent’.”

3. The article then reported that the “International Court of Justice has ruled that there is a plausible case that Israel is committing genocide and that there is a positive duty under international law for governments to prevent genocide.”

4. The article also appeared online in substantively the same format, under the headline “Who’s behind the lobby group accusing SNP of fuelling antisemitism?”

5. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1, as it reported that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) had ruled that “there is a plausible case that Israel is committing genocide”. She said this misled readers and distorted the “legal reality” of the case. She also said that the placement of this claim within the article – following an extract from the letter written by the group’s director – presented the ICJ ruling as if it conclusively contradicted the arguments made in the letter.

6. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. In support of its position, it provided the following quote from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR):

"The ICJ found it plausible that Israel’s acts could amount to genocide and issued six provisional measures, ordering Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent genocidal acts, including preventing and punishing incitement to genocide, ensuring aid and services reach Palestinians under siege in Gaza, and preserving evidence of crimes committed in Gaza."

7. The complainant said that the OHCHR had said that the ICJ “found it plausible that Israel’s acts could amount to genocide.” She said this was not the same as what the article claimed, as she considered the article’s claim – that the ICJ had “ruled that there is a plausible case that Israel is committing genocide” – gave the impression that the court had made a definitive finding, when in fact it had simply found that the allegation was plausible and should be examined in court. She said that what the ICJ had found was that “the rights in question, namely the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide, are plausible.”

8. At any rate, the complainant said that OHCHR was not a judicial body and had “no authority to decide on allegations of genocide or interpret ICJ rulings in a way that overrides the Court’s own documentation”. She said that the ICJ’s official order said that certain acts alleged to have been committed in Israel could fall within the provisions of the Genocide convention, and had explicitly avoided making a determination as to whether genocide was actually occurring.

9. The complainant added that, in an April 2024 interview, the President of the ICJ at the time the ruling was made had said the court “did not decide […] that the claim of genocide was plausible […]. The court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court."

10. The publication noted that the ICJ ruling said: "The Court considers that there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights found by the Court to be plausible, before it gives its final decision". It said that it was reasonable for the article to report, in plain terms, that the finding of the court was of a plausible case of genocide. It said it was “common and, indeed, integral to journalistic practice for complicated jargon and technical terms to be rewritten in a way that is accessible to a wider readership”. Notwithstanding this, it said it would be content to amend the online article to add the following paragraph:

“Joan Donoghue, after having retired from her position as president of the International Court of Justice, disputed this as shorthand for the court’s ruling, stating that ‘the court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court’. She added: ‘There was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide.’”

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. The Committee first noted the context in which the disputed claim appeared in the article: it appeared as a passing reference, in the context of a news article that focused primarily on allegations of antisemitism against the First Minister of Scotland.

12. The Committee also noted that both parties agreed that ICJ had found the that “the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide, are plausible.” The background to the legal case in question was the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine in the Gaza strip.

13. It further noted that, on occasion, it will be necessary for news articles to summarise technical terms and language for the purpose of effectively communicating with a lay audience. However, this must be done in a way which does not render an article inaccurate, distorted, or misleading. In cases involving complex legal matters, such as the violation of international humanitarian law, there is no obligation under the Code to mirror the precise language of the court, provided the Code is not otherwise breached.

14. Taking the above into account, the Committee did not consider that it was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted for the newspaper to summarise the ruling as having found that “that there is a plausible case that Israel is committing genocide”. The Court had had found “the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide, are plausible”, against the background of an ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine in the area. The article had not claimed that the court had made any definitive finding that Israel had committed genocide; merely that there was a plausible case to answer – which the Committee considered to be an accurate summary of the judgment. There was no breach of Clause 1 in relation to this point.

15. The Committee then considered the placement of the disputed claim beneath the letter, and whether this placement gave the misleading impression that it conclusively contradicted the arguments made in the letter. As noted above, the Committee did not consider that the article implied that there had been a definitive legal ruling as to whether genocide had occurred. Given this, the Committee did not consider the placement of the reference to be misleading in the manner alleged by the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

16. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 10/09/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 20/01/2026

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.