The British Medical Association (BMA), which represents over 200,000 doctors in the UK, this week voted to reject the use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition on antisemitism within the NHS.
The motion, which was passed at the union’s annual representatives meeting (ARM), raised concerns about the application of the definition, and called for an immediate investigation into its impact on legitimate political speech and professional expression on Israel’s actions in Palestine, as well as the right for healthcare bodies to challenge attempts to use it to suppress debate on human rights violations and war crimes.
Its passage means that BMA members can lobby the government, NHS England, and stakeholders for policy change on these issues.
The BMA told Middle East Eye in a statement: “Doctors have witnessed in horror the humanitarian crisis that has unfolded during the Middle East conflict, with the devastating loss of civilian life and in particular, the attacks on healthcare workers and healthcare facilities, and must be able to legitimately challenge the actions of states and armed forces without being unfairly accused of any kind of discrimination, or threatened with disciplinary action.”
The vote comes after the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) endorsed a UK government review into anti-Jewish hate earlier this month. The review recommended mandatory antisemitism training for NHS staff, banning them from displaying political symbols in the workplace and prohibiting them from attending protests in their uniforms.
CLICK FOLLOW: TO FOLLOW US
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on
Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other eSPORTY
The review, carried out by the government’s controversial advisor on antisemitism Lord John Mann, relies on the IHRA definition, which has been the subject of intense debate because it connects antisemitism with criticism of Israel.
Following the DHSC’s endorsement, MEE revealed that a coalition of healthcare workers had written to the department calling for an immediate pause to the rollout of the recommendations.
BMA members at the annual meeting also passed an emergency motion supporting this call to pause the implementation of the Mann review.
MEE has been told that some conference attendees had alleged that this motion was antisemitic and should be withdrawn – the BMA’s own legal team advised it was not, however, and the motion was debated and subsequently passed.
‘It rips you apart’
A number of doctors have been investigated by the medical regulator and hospital trusts for criticising Israel’s genocide in Gaza in public spaces and online.
Dr Nadeem Crowe, an emergency doctor in London, was suspended from employment by the Royal Free Hospital during a shift in August 2024 following an anonymous complaint about his social media posts.
‘Being stripped of your livelihood mid-shift over your identity and humanitarian beliefs doesn’t just impact your job, it rips you apart emotionally’
– Dr Nadeem Crowe
The sanction was lifted after his hospital pressured him into deleting the posts, threatening him with an investigation if he did not comply.
“I know the reality of this weaponisation intimately – after dedicating 15 years to my clinical career, I was abruptly suspended following an anonymous complaint that used the IHRA definition to brand my private social media posts regarding Palestinian rights as ‘antisemitic’,” Crowe told MEE.
“It completely derailed my career, and the toll has been severe personally – this hostile regulatory overreach profoundly aggravated a long-standing clinical anxiety disorder, forcing me onto sick leave, requiring increased medication, and causing severe emotional and psychological distress.
“Being stripped of your livelihood mid-shift over your identity and humanitarian beliefs doesn’t just impact your job, it rips you apart emotionally.”
Crowe subsequently launched a legal case against his trust claiming race discrimination and harassment, and is awaiting a judgement on it.
He believes the BMA vote on the IHRA definition is a long-overdue step towards protecting healthcare workers.
“For too long, this deeply flawed framework has been misapplied, serving instead to systematically stifle legitimate political speech, humanitarian concern, and criticism of the state of Israel.
“The BMA is finally standing up for intellectual honesty and the rights of healthcare professionals to speak out on global humanitarian crises.”
Canvassing for complaints
Dr Nizar Mhani has also been the subject of a series of anonymous complaints over social media posts and public speeches in which he criticised Israel’s actions in Gaza.
Mhani welcomed the BMA’s rejection of the IHRA definition, which he believes is flawed and deeply politicised.
“There are malicious groups who have been canvassing for complaints against me, on the grounds that I allegedly support terrorism and am an antisemite,” he told MEE.
‘Doctors are in a unique position to become bearers of witness to human suffering in a way no other profession can’
– Dr Ghassan Abu Sitta
“Their intention was to harass me into feeling intimidated to the point where I was no longer able to criticize Israel or support the Palestinian cause.
“I was doxxed, webpages were set up with my details on, and information shared about how to complain about me.
“I’ve had investigations by my regulator and my hospital, and every single one has concluded there is no case to answer and that I committed no wrongdoing.”
The BMA also passed a motion this week calling for an end to vexatious complaints against doctors, which it says misuse regulatory processes to intimidate and harass healthcare staff.
Despite this intimidating experience, Mhani remains defiant.
“I don’t think I will stop speaking out – the price I’m paying is small compared to what Palestinians are going through,” he said.
‘The complicity of the GMC’
The BMA also voted to oppose the General Medical Council’s (GMC) right to appeal decisions made by its tribunal service, which allows the regulator to re-investigate and sanction doctors cleared of wrongdoing.
It comes after the union launched legal action on this issue earlier this month.
Many healthcare workers believe the GMC is using its right to appeal to crack down on pro-Palestine advocacy, including in the case of British-Palestinian surgeon Dr Ghassan Abu-Sitta.
UK Lawyers For Israel complained to the GMC about some of Abu Sitta’s social media posts on Gaza, and an opinion piece he had written in 2018 in a Lebanese newspaper.
He was cleared of allegations of antisemitism and glorifying terrorism, but the GMC is now challenging that ruling.
‘Relentless’: How UK Lawyers for Israel targets pro-Palestinian voices
Read More »
Speaking to MEE, Abu Sitta said: “The decision by the GMC to appeal to the High Court to overturn the findings of its two tribunals and to effectively say it needs a third attempt to find a judge who will give it the right political verdict highlights the extent to which the regulator has become a tool for political pressure at the hands of UK Lawyers For Israel.
“All of the complaints against me came from UK Lawyers For Israel, and that in itself highlights the complicity of the GMC in pandering to an organisation that says it exists to wage lawfare against those that it considers the enemy of Israel.
“Doctors are in a unique position to become bearers of witness to human suffering in a way no other profession can – those who are behind this oppression want to silence the witnesses’ statements, and punish them by having them thrown out of the profession.”
In response to MEE’s request for comment, the GMC said it would only exercise its right of appeal after careful consideration.
“Our focus is protecting the public, and we are satisfied given the nature of the allegations that it is right that we appeal in [Dr Abu Sitta’s] case,” GMC said.
“We operate independently of both the government and the medical profession, and make all of our fitness to practise decisions on the facts of each case, assessing whether there is any current or ongoing risk to public protection, public confidence in the medical profession, and professional standards and conduct.”
Dr Mhani also believes the GMC should be stripped of the right to appeal its tribunal decisions.
“The regulator runs the risk of becoming a vehicle for abuse and a conduit for harassment towards its registrants, and it is slowly becoming unfit for purpose,” he said.
BMA members also voted to uphold doctors’ right to freedom of speech, including on political issues, matters of public conscience, international conflict and humanitarian law.
They argued that there is a perception among doctors that political pressure is unduly influencing GMC processes, something which Mhani echoed.
“It is only now that opinions have been shared in support of the Palestinian cause that apparently political views are sensitive and need curtailing, and this in and of itself is part of the dehumanisation of Palestinians,” he said.
