04553-25 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 “HOW GENOCIDE HAPPENED”, published on 13 October 2025.

2. The article – which was flagged on the newspaper’s front-page as a “four-page special report”, and appeared on pages 2 through 5 of the newspaper – was described in a sub-headline as “quotes from key Israeli figures exposing the genocidal sentiment which has fuelled two years of atrocities”. Nine quotes appeared on the newspaper’s front-page, and individuals quoted in the article included a comedian, a soldier, a former defence minister, a former IDF brigadier general, a journalist, local politicians, a “lecturer and comedian”, an “ex-Knesset politician and now head of the Metula town council”, and a sports commentator. The sports commentator was described as a “former Knesset member”.

3. The article also included the following quote from the Israeli Prime Minister:

“We will avenge with great force the black day they have inflicted upon the State of Israel and its citizens. As Biyalik said: revenge for the blood of a little child – has yet been devised by Satan. All the places where Hamas is positioned at, of [sic] this city of evil, all the places Hamas is hiding in, operating in, we will turn them into piles of rubble. I’m telling the residents of Gaza: get out of there, now. We will operate everywhere, and in full force.”

4. The former defence minister was quoted as having said:

“We are imposing a complete siege on the city of Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and are acting accordingly”.

5. The quote from the former IDF member included:

“[…] anyone who stands in our way to dealing with the snake – Hamas, its activists, its infrastructure, its regime – pity the evil, and pity his neighbour. Anyone standing in our way should know he’ll be hit, and hit hard […] Right now, the state of Israel has one goal: to annihilate.”

6. A local politician was quoted in the article as having said:

“Up until the Litani [river]. Level all of it. They’re all terrorists, no-one is a citizen from anything you’re seeing. Destroy all villages. They are not villages, they are Redwan and Hezbollah terrorist hubs.”

7. Another local politician reportedly “called for burying alive dozens of Palestinian civilians whom he described as ‘subhuman’. [The politician] called the unarmed men, who were arbitrarily grabbed from their homes in Gaza by the Israeli army, ‘Nazi Muslims’.”

8. The article also, under the heading “Intelligence Ministry Document”, reported:

“Despite its name, the Intelligence Ministry is not directly responsible for any intelligence body, but rather independently prepares studies and policy papers that are distributed to the Israeli government and security agencies for review, but are not binding.

[…]

The Israeli government ministry prepared a detailed proposal to forcibly transfer Gaza’s residents to Egypt [….] reflecting how the idea of forced population transfer was being raised to the level of official policy discussions.

[…]

A source in the Intelligence Ministry confirmed to Local Call/+972 that the document was authentic, that it was distributed to the defence establishment by the ministry’s policy division and ‘was not supposed to reach the media’”

9. On page 4, the headline read “’I want to behead head after head’”. In the article itself, a fuller version of this quote – “’I want the possibility to behead head after head, head after head of the Nukhba” – was attributed to the “national security minister and leader of the far-right Jewish Power party”.

10. Under a further heading which read “Cabinet Source select excerpts”, the article referenced plans drawn up at the Israeli’s Prime Minister’s request “which examines ways to thin the population in Gaza to a minimum”.

11. The article also appeared online in substantively the same form, under the headline: “How Gaza genocide happened: Damning words of Israel's politicians”. This version of the article did not include the front-page quotes.

12. The complainant said that the article breached the terms of Clause 1. First, she said the headline reported as established fact that a genocide had occurred in Gaza, when the legal body mandated to make such a judgment – the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – had made no such finding. She said that the article did not support the headline claim, as the article consisted primarily of quotes from various figures without evidence of “completed genocide”.

13. The complainant also said that the front-page was misleading, as it omitted to include any quotes from Israel’s Prime Minister or IDF leaders, who were central to decision-making. She said the front-page instead amplified voices “that are entirely irrelevant to a genocide occurring”. She said that the quote from the Prime Minister which appeared in the article aligned with Israel’s policy of targeting combatants while encouraging civilian safety, as in the quote he urged Gazan civilians to “get out of there” to avoid harm. She added that the only IDF-linked figures quoted on the article – the ex-brigadier and the ex-defence minister - had not made statements constituting genocidal intent, as their quoted statements were aimed at Hamas, not civilians.

14. She also raised similar concerns regarding the quotes which appeared in the four-page spread in the newspaper, which she said reflected “personal or fringe opinions, not governmental decisions”. She said the blanket description of these individuals as “key Israeli figures” was inaccurate and that it was misleading to “cherry-pick” inflammatory statements from such individuals.

15. The complainant added that one of the individuals, who was described in the article as a “former Knesset member”, was actually a sports commentator and had not been a Knesset member.

16. The complainant then turned to the headline which appeared on page 4: “’I want to behead head after head’”. She said that the article clarified that this quote was aimed at the Nukhba, the Hamas group responsible for the 7 October attack. While the complainant accepted the statement was inflammatory, she said that it did not show “genocidal intent”, as it was directed at a terrorist group. She added that she considered this was a mistranslation, and that the original Hebrew - “I want the possibility to execute head by head, head by head of the Nukhba” – was calling for the death penalty rather than what she described as “gruesome beheadings”.

17. The complainant added that the article breached Clause 1 by referring to a document prepared by Israel’s Intelligence Ministry as “official policy discussions”. She said this distorted the minor role played by the ministry, without emphasising that the proposal was rejected by the IDF, Defence Ministry, and international allies.

18. The publication did not accept that it was a breach of the Code to refer to the situation in Gaza as a genocide. It added that newspapers have the right to choose what pieces of information to publish, provided the Code is not breached. It did not, therefore, consider that publishing quotes from the individuals referenced in the article constituted a breach of the Code. It said that it considered its description of those quoted as “key Israeli figures” to be accurate – all those who appeared, it said, were of clear relevance to the public sphere.

19. However, the publication did accept that it was inaccurate to refer to a sports commentator as a “former Knesset member”. Four days after IPSO began its investigation, it amended the online article to instead refer to him as a “sports commentator”, and also proposed to publish the following correction in print – in the corrections box on its letters page - and online as a footnote to the article:

“On October 13, in our article ‘How Gaza genocide happened: Incriminating words of Israel's politicians’, we described Danny Neuman as a ‘former Knesset member’. Following a complaint, we would like to apologise for this error. Neuman is a sports commentator whose permanent pass to the Israeli parliament was suspended amid a scandal surrounding a video appearing to show him promising to connect clients to top government officials. Neuman denied breaking any laws at the time.”

20. Turning to the “behead head after head” quote, the publication said it did not accept this was misleading, and added that the full quote was given in the article to ensure clarity.

21. The complainant did not accept the proposed correction, and said it introduced a new inaccuracy, as the revocation of his Knesset pass “arose from a hypothetical business discussion”. She said there were no charges and no findings in relation to the case. She added that the original article misspelt his name as “Neumann”.

22. The complainant, in her response to the publication’s position, and three weeks after her initial complaint, raised further inaccuracies. She said that one quoted individual was described as a lecturer and comedian, when he was a veterinarian, and not a policy maker. She added that a further individual was described as a “ex-Knesset politician and now head of the Metula town council”, but had never been a member of the Knesset.

23. The complainant also said that the local politician’s reference – quoted in the article – to “destroying villages” which were “Redwan and Hezbollah terrorist hubs” was misleading, as he was referring to Lebanon and Hezbollah, not Gaza. She said readers would assume he was advocating for destroying Gaza, when he was explicitly referencing Lebanese territory.

24. She added that the article misleadingly quoted from another local politician, who had allegedly reportedly “called for burying alive dozens of Palestinian civilians”. She said he had not used the word “civilians”, and that his comments were directed at “at individuals described elsewhere as either Hamas terrorists or civilians, but their status is unclear”.

25. The complainant also said that the “Cabinet Sources select excerpts” portion of the article was misleading. She said that the excerpts published under this heading had been taken from an Israeli newspaper column which described what the complainant considered to be “speculative, unofficial internal talks opposed by Gallant, the IDF, and most ministers, with no official status” – rather than anonymous cabinet leaks. The complainant used AI to analyse the original article – which was in Hebrew – and provided the AI’s analysis to IPSO.

26. The publication expressed concern at the use of AI to pursue the complaint, noting the possibility of ‘hallucinations’ – information fabricated by generative AI software. Notwithstanding this, the publication confirmed that the newspaper column was indeed the source for the “Cabinet Sources select excerpts” quoted in the article. It noted that the copy was clearly written from a third-party perspective but that, to avoid further confusion, it said it would be happy to publish clarifications online and in print to clarify the source of this information.

27. The publication also offered to – on the day this point of complaint was drawn to its attention by IPSO - make clear in its correction that the local politician described in the article as an ex-Knesset member had not, in fact, been a member of the Israeli parliament. However, it said that it did not consider this materially affected the article’s overall thrust, as it remained the fact that a public figure held these views.

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

28. The newspaper had incorrectly reported the identity of two of the individuals quoted in the article: it had referred to a sports commentator as a “former Knesset member”, and a local politician as an “ex-Knesset member”. The publication accepted that the article was inaccurate on these points, and the Committee considered that misreporting these two individuals’ roles demonstrated a lack of care not to publish inaccurate information, in breach of Clause 1 (i).

29. In the context of an article reporting on comments made by prominent Israeli figures, inaccurately reporting the political roles of these two individuals represented significantly inaccurate information – particularly as the inaccuracy served to give their comments greater emphasis and weight, given the article reported they were previous members of the Israeli parliament. The inaccuracies were therefore significant and required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

30. In relation to the sports commentator, the newspaper had – four days after the beginning of IPSO’s investigation – proposed to publish corrections, making clear that the man was not a former Knesset member and was in fact a sports commentator. The Committee therefore considered that the proposed corrections put the correct position on record, and had been offered promptly. It also considered the proposed locations of these corrections to be duly prominent: the print version would be published in the usual location for corrections, and the online version would appear appended to the original article (which would be amended to remove the inaccurate information.) The corrections therefore addressed the terms of Clause 1 (ii), and there was no further breach of the Code in relation to the sports commentator.

31. The complainant had, later in IPSO’s process, said that the article misspelt the sport’s commentator’s name. Given this appeared to have come about due to a typographical error, rather than a failure in the pre-publication process, the Committee did not consider that this represented a breach of Clause 1 (i). It also did not consider that the article was significantly inaccurate on this point, given it was a minor typographical error. There was, therefore, also no breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

32. The complainant had also said that the correction introduced a further inaccuracy, as it made a reference to the sport’s commentator’s Knesset pass having been revoked – and “there were no charges and no findings in relation to the case.” However, given it did not appear to be in dispute that the pass had indeed been revoked, the Committee did not consider that referencing this represented a breach of Clause 1.

33. When the second inaccuracy had been drawn to its attention by IPSO, the publication had also proposed to amend its correction to make clear that the second individual was the head of a local council but not an ex-Knesset member. While the publication had not set out the specific wording of this addition to its already proposed correction, the Committee considered that it was sufficiently clear – for the purposes of Clause 1 (ii) – that the publication had offered to correct the inaccuracy and put on record the proposed position.

34. The Committee, as noted above, considered the location of the corrections to be duly prominent, and it also considered that a form of wording making clear that the individual was not an ex-Knesset member would be sufficient to correct the record.

35. The Committee noted that the offer was not made until the inaccuracy was specifically drawn to its attention by IPSO. However, the correction had been offered promptly once raised – within one day – and was not raised until several weeks into the IPSO process. On this basis, the Committee was satisfied that any delay in offering the correction did not represent a lack of promptness. There was, therefore, no breach of 1 (ii) in relation to the proposed corrective action on this point.

36. The complainant had also said that the article inaccurately reported that Israel’s actions in Gaza constituted 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.

37. Given this, the Committee was not in a position to determine 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.

38. The selection of material for publication is a matter of editorial discretion, provided the Code is not otherwise breached. Therefore, the fact that the publication had not included a quote from the Israeli Prime Minister or IDF leaders on its front-page did not represent a breach of Clause 1. The publication was also entitled to publish comments from figures who weren’t national politicians, and the Committee noted that the article did not purport to only report on comments made by politicians, or on governmental decisions. Rather, the article said it quoted “key Israeli figures”.

39. While the complainant disputed that the individuals quoted in the article could be described as “key Israeli figures”, the Committee noted that what constitutes a “key figure” is, to an extent, subjective. The article – by naming each of the quoted individuals, and reporting their role – made clear the basis for its characterisation of those quoted as “key figures”, with the exception of the two inaccurately labelled individuals dealt with above. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

40. The complainant had also said that the quote from Benjamin Netenyahu included in the article aligned with Israel’s policy, and that the only quotes from IDF linked figures did not constitute genocidal intent. While the Committee understood the complainant’s interpretation of these quotes clearly differed from that of the publication’s, it did not consider this represented a breach of Clause 1 – the quotes were included in a manner which would allow readers to draw their own conclusions and reach their own interpretation as to their meaning. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

41. It was not in dispute that an individual quoted in the article had called for execution by beheading. The article also made clear that this quote had been made about the Nukhba, rather than Palestinians in general. While the complainant did not consider this statement showed genocidal intent, but rather called for the state death penalty, the Committee noted that the substance of the quote – that an individual had said he wished for the Nukhba to be beheaded – was set out in the article, and readers would therefore be able to reach their own interpretation as to its meaning. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

42. The article made clear the role played by the Israeli Intelligence Ministry, and that it “is not directly responsible for any intelligence body, but rather independently prepares studies and policy papers that are distributed to the Israeli government and security agencies for review, but are not binding”. Given this, the Committee did not consider that the article was misleading as to the role the ministry played in Israel. The article also did not claim that the policy document quoted had formed the basis of any governmental policy or action. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

43. The Committee noted that an individual can be a lecturer and comedian, as well as a veterinarian, and that the article did not claim that the relevant individual was a policy maker. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

44. The article’s references to an individual advocating for “destroying villages” made clear that this had been said in relation to “Redwan and Hezbollah terrorist hubs”, not Gaza. The Committee did not, therefore, consider that the article gave the misleading impression that this call had been made in relation to Gaza. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

45. The Committee understood that the politician who had “called for burying alive dozens of Palestinian civilians” had not used the word “civilian”. Rather, he had used the term “Nazi Muslims”. However, the Committee did not consider that there was sufficient information before it to find that the article was inaccurate to use the term “civilians”. It appeared that whether or not the men the politician had referred to were civilians was a matter of dispute, and at any rate the article made clear that the politicians had referred to the men as “Nazi Muslims”. There was no breach of Clause on this point.

46. The portion of the article labelled “Cabinet Sources select excerpts” was taken from a newspaper column which referenced confidential cabinet discussions. Given this, the Committee did not consider that the heading was inaccurate in circumstances where the manner in which the excerpts were set out made clear that the article under complaint paraphrasing claims made by sources within the cabinet – rather than quoting directly from cabinet discussions. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

47. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial action required

48. The correction which was offered clearly put the correct position on record, and was offered promptly and with due prominence, and should now be published.

Date complaint received: 13/10/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 12/03/2026

Independent Complaints Reviewer

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