A fitness-to-practice panel of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service has cleared Ghassan Abu-Sittah — surgeon, rector of the University of Glasgow, and one of the most prominent Palestinian voices in Britain — of all allegations of professional misconduct. The charges, brought by the General Medical Council after a complaint filed by UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), accused him of promoting antisemitism, supporting violence, and endorsing terrorism. The tribunal found no evidence supporting any of those claims.
The case stemmed from an opinion article Abu-Sittah wrote for a Lebanese newspaper and two posts on X. In the article, he referenced the killing of Ahmad Nasr Jarrar, believed to be affiliated with Hamas, and wrote that Palestinians had been left with “no weapon left but revolutionary violence.” Tribunal chair Ian Comfort said the panel assessed the article in its entirety and rejected the claim that it promoted antisemitism or terrorism, noting that it primarily expressed criticism of Palestinian political elites.
Abu-Sittah’s response on the day of the ruling was unambiguous: “WE WON.”
The case should be understood in context. UKLFI is the same organization that pressured the British Museum to remove the word “Palestine” from its displays, filed complaints against universities, hospitals, and charities, and has been under investigation by the Charity Commission since July 2025. Bringing a fitness-to-practice complaint against a surgeon for writing a political opinion piece is not a good-faith invocation of professional standards. It is a pressure campaign designed to silence a credible Palestinian voice in British public life.
Abu-Sittah has documented Israeli war crimes in Gaza in graphic clinical detail — he treated Palestinian casualties through multiple military operations before being barred from entering France in April 2024 while traveling to a medical conference. France later reversed course under public pressure. The British tribunal has now done the same.
The pattern is clear. When documentation, testimony, and professional authority cannot be refuted on the merits, the alternative strategy is to destroy the person making the argument. In Abu-Sittah’s case, it failed.
Glasgow Rector Ghassan Abu-Sittah Cleared of All Misconduct Charges. The Case Was Never About Antisemitism.
A fitness-to-practice panel of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service has cleared Ghassan Abu-Sittah — surgeon, rector of the University of Glasgow, and one of the most prominent Palestinian voices in Britain — of all allegations of professional misconduct. The charges, brought by the General Medical Council after a complaint filed by UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), accused him of promoting antisemitism, supporting violence, and endorsing terrorism. The tribunal found no evidence supporting any of those claims.
The case stemmed from an opinion article Abu-Sittah wrote for a Lebanese newspaper and two posts on X. In the article, he referenced the killing of Ahmad Nasr Jarrar, believed to be affiliated with Hamas, and wrote that Palestinians had been left with “no weapon left but revolutionary violence.” Tribunal chair Ian Comfort said the panel assessed the article in its entirety and rejected the claim that it promoted antisemitism or terrorism, noting that it primarily expressed criticism of Palestinian political elites.
Abu-Sittah’s response on the day of the ruling was unambiguous: “WE WON.”
The case should be understood in context. UKLFI is the same organization that pressured the British Museum to remove the word “Palestine” from its displays, filed complaints against universities, hospitals, and charities, and has been under investigation by the Charity Commission since July 2025. Bringing a fitness-to-practice complaint against a surgeon for writing a political opinion piece is not a good-faith invocation of professional standards. It is a pressure campaign designed to silence a credible Palestinian voice in British public life.
Abu-Sittah has documented Israeli war crimes in Gaza in graphic clinical detail — he treated Palestinian casualties through multiple military operations before being barred from entering France in April 2024 while traveling to a medical conference. France later reversed course under public pressure. The British tribunal has now done the same.
The pattern is clear. When documentation, testimony, and professional authority cannot be refuted on the merits, the alternative strategy is to destroy the person making the argument. In Abu-Sittah’s case, it failed.