06068-25 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 “Israeli airstrikes on Gaza kill at least 20 Palestinians amid ceasefire”, published on 23 November 2025.

2. The article reported on Israeli airstrikes on Gaza. It said that “Israel has previously carried out similar waves of strikes after alleged attacks on its forces” and went on the report “the Israeli military said soldiers killed five ‘terrorists’ in the Rafah area”. It then said the UN Security Council Resolution “authorises an international stabilisation force to provide security […] and envisions a possible future path to an independent Palestinian state.”

3. It further described Israel’s bombardment as “genocidal” and reported that the “latest figures from Gaza’s Health Ministry show 69,733 Palestinians have been killed and 170,863 injured by Isreal’s bombardment”.

4. The article also appeared online, in substantially the same format, under the headline “Israeli airstrikes on Gaza kill at least 20 Palestinians”.

5. The complainant said the article was inaccurate and misleading – in breach of Clause 1 – to report that the “latest figures from Gaza’s Health Ministry show 69,733 Palestinians have been killed and 170,863 injured by Israel’s bombardment.” She said this attributed all the deaths to Israeli military action while omitting deaths caused by other factors – such as public executions by Palestinian groups, internal fighting and rocket misfires. She said the Gaza’s Health Ministry figures did not disaggregate causes of death.

6. She also said the article was misleading to use the term “genocidal” to describe the conflict, because the International Court of Justice (ICJ) had not found there was a genocide occurring in Gaza. She also noted the UK government had stated in September 2025 that it had not concluded that Israel was acting with genocidal intent.

7. She also said the article was distorted, as it used the word “alleged” when describing attacks on Israeli forces. She said this cast doubt on the veracity of the attack, and that the article did not use similar qualifier when reporting on Israeli military actions.

8. She also said, by putting the word “terrorists” within quotation marks, the article misleadingly implied the individuals killed by Israeli soldiers were not terrorists.

9. Further, she said the article was inaccurate to suggest the UN Security Council resolution authorised an international stabilisation force to provide security and “envision[ed] a possible future path to an independent Palestinian state”. Rather, she said the force was only authorised for specific and limited purpose – including helping “to secure border areas” – and the Council had said “the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.”

10. The publication did not accept the article breached Clause 1. It said the death and injury toll by the Gaza’s Ministry of Health was clearly attributed to the Ministry in the article, and based on its statement that the “death toll from the Israeli aggression has risen to 69,733 martyrs and 170,863 injuries since October 7, 2023”. It also said these figures were widely considered the only reliable source, given Israel’s policy of excluding outside observers from Gaza. It added these figures were relied on by the Press Association in its reporting.

11. The publication also pointed to a statement from the UN Special Committee to support the use of the term “genocidal” in the article.

12. The complainant then provided a link to the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) dashboard of Palestinian Casualties, as reported by the Palestinian Ministry of Health, since 7 October 2023. She said the WHO dashboard included a breakdown of the cumulative death toll - it showed that, as of 5 January 2026, there had been 3,709 deaths since the ceasefire began. Meanwhile, the Health Ministry reported on 6 January there were 424 Palestinians killed by Israel since ceasefire began. She said that the discrepancy showed the Ministry's data did not disaggregate deaths caused by factors other than Israeli military action – as the Ministry’s cumulative death toll included deaths not attributed to Israeli military action.

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

13. The Committee noted the article clearly attributed the death and injury toll to the Gaza Health Ministry, and that the Ministry attributed the deaths and injuries to “Israeli aggression”.

14. The Gaza Health Ministry figures did not provide a breakdown of deaths and injuries caused by factors other than Israeli military action. However, the Committee noted that – provided the statistics were accurately reported and sourced – there was no obligation for the publication to verify the specific breakdown of the figures, particularly in circumstances where they related to deaths in a foreign conflict which the publication could not feasibly have first-hand knowledge of.

15. While the article used the words “Israel’s bombardment”, the Committee did not consider that this was an inaccurate summary of the Health Ministry’s statement – given they had attributed all of the deaths to “Israeli aggression”. Given this, and where the article attributed the figures to “Gaza’s Health Ministry”, the article did not report on the Ministry’s statistics in a manner which was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

16. The Committee then considered the use of the word “genocidal” in the article. The Committee noted that, at the time it considered the complaint, the ICJ was in the process of considering allegations of genocide brought against Israel.

17. 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.

18. The Committee did not accept the use of the word “alleged” or placing the word “terrorists” within quotation marks intrinsically meant the newspaper was expressing scepticism, as contended by the complainant. At any rate, where the complainant had expressed concern that the article used qualifying language to refer to Israeli statements in a manner that it did not for Palestinian statements, the Committee considered that – in essence – the concerns of the complainant related to bias on the part of the publication. Given the Editors’ Code does not prohibit bias – and makes clear that newspapers are entitled to be partisan and to express its viewpoint – there was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

19. The UN Security Council had authorised an international stabilisation force “to secure border areas”, and the Committee considered that it was not inaccurate to summarise this as an authorisation “to provide security”.

20. The Council had also expressed its hope that “the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood”. Given the specific references to “self-determination and statehood”, the Committee again did not consider that the article was inaccurate in its summary, which was that there was a vision for “a possible future path to an independent Palestinian state”. As such, it considered that the article’s reporting was a fair characterisation of the resolution.

21. The Committee further noted that newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of information they publish – the publication was not required to set out all the details of the resolution, or to use the precise language of the resolution, provided it was not inaccurately summarised. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

22. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 24/11/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 08/04/2026