05134-25 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 “Our sold-out talk raises thousands for Gaza charity”, published on 17 October 2025.

2. The article reported on a talk the publication had hosted about the conflict in Gaza. The sub-headline to the article read “[Writer] sheds light on how UK enabled genocide”. The article also reported that Isaac Herzog “made a speech in which he claimed the genocide in Gaza was being waged to ‘defend the free world’”.

3. The article also appeared online in substantively the same format, under the headline “The National's talk with Peter Oborne raises thousands for Gaza cause”. This version of the article was published on 16 October 2025.

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it reported that the UK had “enabled genocide”. She said that the only legal body mandated to make a finding as to whether genocide was being perpetrated in Israel was the International Court of Justice, and it had made no such finding to this effect. She added that the UK Government had concluded on 1 September 2025 that it had “not concluded that Israel is acting with […] intent” to destroy a group, in part or in whole, which was a key component of genocide.

5. The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 1 by reporting that Isaac Herzog “made a speech in which he claimed the genocide in Gaza was being waged to ‘defend the free world’”. She said this misled readers, as it gave the impression that Mr Herzog had used the word “genocide” in his speech.

6. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said it had described Israel’s actions in Gaza as a genocide “based on its characteristics”. It also said that the Chair of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories had described the situation in Gaza as a genocide.

7. The publication also did not accept that the article gave the impression that Mr Herzog had described the situation in Gaza as a genocide. It noted that the only phrase which was placed within quote marks and attributed to him in the article was “defend the free world”. It said that, given that this was the only part of the disputed sentence placed within quote marks, it would be clear that Mr Herzog did not say that “genocide” was being waged in Gaza.

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

8. The Committee first wished to note its remit: its role was to decide whether the article under complaint breached the Editors’ Code. Its role was not to adjudicate on the actions of Israel – and it was not in a position to make such a finding.

9. The article had referred to Israel’s actions in Gaza as a genocide, in reporting that the UK had “enabled 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.

10. As noted above, the Committee was not in a position to adjudicate on the actions of Israel – this included determining 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.

11. The article had also reported that Isaac Herzog “made a speech in which he claimed the genocide in Gaza was being waged to ‘defend the free world’” – which the complainant had said was misleading, as it gave the impression Mr Herzog had used the word genocide.

12. It was not in dispute that Mr Herzog had not used the word “genocide” in his speech. The question for the Committee was whether the article suggested, inaccurately, that he had done so.

13. Given the gravity of the claim, the Committee considered closely the disputed passage and the context in which it appeared, to determine its meaning.

14. The Committee noted first that the sentence in question used direct quotes to attribute to Mr Herzog the phrase “defend the free world”. By contrast, the word genocide did not appear in direct quotation marks. This different treatment suggested that the word “genocide” had not been used, verbatim, by Mr Herzog.

15. The Committee nonetheless further considered whether the article suggested that Mr Herzog had used words or terminology similar to “genocide”, which the reference was intended to paraphrase. It noted that the article contained several instances in which the publication referred to Israel’s actions in Gaza as constituting genocide, including in the sub-headline, quoted above. It was evident from this that the publication characterised Israel’s actions as genocide. Further, it was clear from the article (including the sentence under complaint) that Mr Herzog defended Israel’s actions, albeit the publication presented this information in a critical light. In the context of the article as a whole, the Committee therefore considered that it was clear that the word “genocide” meant that this was a further instance in the article of the publication characterising Israel’s actions in Gaza in these terms, rather than being either a direct quotation or paraphrase of Mr Herzog’s comments.

16. Given this, the Committee was satisfied that the article did not attribute the word “genocide” to Isaac Herzog, and that the article was not misleading as to what Mr Herzog had actually said. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

17. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 17/11/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 30/03/2026

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.