Key Takeaways:
- A UK medical tribunal has cleared British-Palestinian surgeon Dr. Ghassan Abu Sittah of all misconduct charges.
- The case was initiated by the pro-Israel lobby group UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) and pursued by the General Medical Council.
- The tribunal found the allegations of antisemitism and support for terrorism were based on "cherrypicked" and misrepresented evidence.
- Dr. Abu Sittah was previously subject to a Schengen-wide travel ban issued by Germany, later overturned by courts.
- The case highlights the use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) to silence critics.
Tribunal Dismisses "Cherrypicked" Allegations
A UK medical tribunal has delivered a resounding verdict, clearing renowned British-Palestinian surgeon Dr. Ghassan Abu Sittah of all misconduct charges. The allegations, which could have ended his medical career, were brought by the regulatory General Medical Council (GMC) following a complaint from the lobby group UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI).
The three-person panel of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service dismissed the case entirely. It concluded that UKLFI and the GMC had "cherrypicked" and misrepresented social media posts and an article, failing to provide accurate translations of Dr. Abu Sittah's arguments in Arabic.
Panel chair Ian Comfort stated the tribunal could find nothing antisemitic or supportive of terrorism or violence. After the ruling, Dr. Abu Sittah described UKLFI's goal as "trying to destroy my life."
The Schengen Ban: Silencing a Witness
Dr. Abu Sittah's troubles extended far beyond the UK. In April 2024, Germany issued a Schengen-wide travel ban against him, preventing entry to most European countries. The justification? German authorities claimed his public statements—accurately describing Israel's attacks on hospitals and the unfolding genocide in Gaza—threatened public order.
This ban effectively silenced a key eyewitness from attending international conferences and sharing his testimony. Human Rights Watch condemned the move as an attempt to muzzle a witness to genocide. After a protracted legal battle, German courts overturned the politically inspired ban in late 2025.
Who Is UK Lawyers for Israel?
The group behind the complaint, UK Lawyers for Israel, is a political lobby organization with charitable status. Its tactics have drawn increasing scrutiny:
- It pressured a London hospital to remove artwork by Gazan children, claiming it would offend Jewish patients.
- It has sent threatening legal letters to organizations planning Palestinian solidarity events, causing several cancellations.
- It has reported charities like War on Want and Medical Aid for Palestinians to regulators, seeking to revoke their status.
The Charity Commission and the Solicitors Regulation Authority have now opened investigations into UKLFI. A formal complaint accuses the group of "intimidation dressed up as law."
A Pattern of Legal Harassment (SLAPPs)
The case against Dr. Abu Sittah fits a pattern of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). These are not filed to win, but to burden the target with exhausting, expensive legal defenses. Deep-pocketed groups use them to create a hostile environment for critics.
Last month, another pro-Israel group, the Campaign Against Antisemitism, had a private prosecution against comedian Reginald D Hunter thrown out of court. The judge called the case "abusive" and "vexatious," noting the group intentionally misled the court.
Establishment Complicity and Media Failure
The Abu Sittah case reveals troubling collusion or incompetence within British institutions. The GMC's decision to pursue baseless allegations suggests regulatory bodies can be weaponized for political causes.
Meanwhile, major media outlets like The Guardian and the BBC continue to treat groups like UKLFI as credible sources on antisemitism, even after their legal maneuvers are discredited by courts. Reporting often lacks crucial context, such as the ongoing investigations into these very groups.
This creates a repressive climate where speaking out on Gaza carries significant professional and legal risk. The targeting of a doctor who provided life-saving surgery in a war zone marks a dangerous escalation.
The tribunal's ruling is a victory for free speech and a setback for lawfare tactics. However, the prior Schengen ban and the GMC's initial actions show how easily European travel rights and professional standing can be threatened by politically motivated complaints.