On November 26, 2025, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) handed down a 15-month suspension to Dr Rahmeh Aladwan, a 31-year-old British-Palestinian NHS trainee trauma and orthopaedic surgeon, in a case that has ignited fierce debate about free speech, antisemitism, and the responsibilities of medical professionals in the digital age. The decision follows an investigation by the General Medical Council (GMC) into a series of alleged antisemitic and pro-terrorism comments Dr Aladwan made on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter.
According to BBC reporting, the GMC’s probe was triggered after it received more than 200 complaints from members of the public and Jewish organizations regarding Dr Aladwan’s online activity. Among the posts cited were comments expressing support for Hamas and the October 7, 2025 attacks on Israel, as well as statements referring to “Jewish supremacy,” calling Israelis “worse than Nazis,” and denying the Holocaust. The MPTS tribunal concluded that such comments could “impact on patient confidence” and potentially discourage patients from seeking treatment from Dr Aladwan or the wider profession.
At the tribunal hearing in Manchester, Dr Aladwan arrived wearing what was described by the Daily Mail as a “celebratory” October 7 necklace—a date associated with the Hamas attacks on Israel. The hearing was not designed to rule on the veracity of the allegations themselves, but rather to determine whether Dr Aladwan’s medical practice should be restricted while the GMC’s investigation continues. The panel ultimately sided with the GMC’s recommendation for suspension, noting the “escalation in the tone” of Dr Aladwan’s posts following a previous ruling and the Manchester synagogue attack in early October.
In its written ruling, the tribunal stated that “there is no information to suggest that any patient complaints have been raised or that any patients have come to harm.” Nonetheless, the panel found that the nature of Dr Aladwan’s alleged comments posed a risk to public confidence in the medical profession. “Our focus now is to complete our investigation swiftly, fairly and proportionately,” a GMC spokesperson told the Daily Mail.
Dr Aladwan, for her part, has vehemently denied making racist or hate-filled statements. In a post on X following the tribunal’s decision, she declared, “Let this decision stand as the definitive proof that there is no independent British medical regulation. The ‘Israeli’ and Jewish lobby decide who can and cannot practise medicine in Britain. This is not an end. It is the beginning of a far greater battle for the integrity of our institutions.” She continued, “My faith remains steadfast. My gratitude to every single person who has supported our just cause is boundless. What an honour it is to sacrifice for our people. Free Palestine and Britain from Jewish supremacy.”
The GMC’s investigation has included a range of allegations, some of which were outlined during the tribunal. Emma Gilsenan, representing the GMC, cited posts in which Dr Aladwan referred to Hamas members as “oppressed resistance fighters, not terrorists” and “martyrs,” and described October 7 as the day Israel was “humiliated.” Other posts refused to “condemn” Hamas or the armed resistance to occupation, with one stating, “I would join the Palestinian armed resistance now.” Additional posts reportedly mocked female Israeli hostages and branded Britain’s Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis as “Rabbi Genocide.”
Further posts attributed to Dr Aladwan claimed the Holocaust was a “fabricated victim narrative,” compared Zionism to Nazism, and described Jewish people as “the most despicable people on the planet.” The tribunal also considered evidence that Dr Aladwan made a “throat-cutting” gesture toward Jewish protestors during a counter-demonstration in June 2024. These actions, according to Ms. Gilsenan, amounted to “most certainly” antisemitic speech and support for terrorism and violence, which she argued posed a significant risk to public confidence in the medical profession.
Dr Aladwan’s counsel, Kevin Saunders, pushed back strongly against the GMC’s case. He argued that the proceedings were an “abuse of process” and that the tribunal panel was biased. Saunders described Dr Aladwan as having an “impeccable” medical record and being herself a victim of genocide and dispossession. He maintained that her statements constituted “political speech not hate speech,” and that she was exercising her right to speak out against what she regarded as genocide and crimes by Israel, including those identified by the United Nations. He also accused the GMC of a “seismic shift” in their approach by seeking a “draconian” suspension rather than the less severe restrictions imposed at the first interim tribunal in September.
The GMC, however, underscored that while Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights does protect freedom of expression, it does not extend to the publication of racist or antisemitic statements. The tribunal ultimately agreed, citing the need to maintain public trust in the medical profession as paramount.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting weighed in on the controversy after the earlier September ruling, stating that such “sickening comments” had no place in the NHS and pledging to overhaul the way medical regulators investigate cases of antisemitism. The case has since become a flashpoint in ongoing debates about the boundaries between political speech, hate speech, and professional conduct—especially in the context of social media, where the lines can sometimes blur.
The GMC’s own social media guidance acknowledges that medical professionals have the right to “freedom of belief, privacy, and expression,” but cautions that this must be balanced with “the possible impact on other people’s rights and interests.” In Dr Aladwan’s case, the tribunal found that the balance tipped decisively in favor of protecting public confidence and patient safety.
Dr Aladwan’s suspension takes effect immediately and will be reviewed within six months. The GMC’s investigation remains ongoing, and depending on its outcome, Dr Aladwan could face a full medical practitioners tribunal to determine whether she is fit to remain on the medical register. For now, the case stands as a stark reminder of the challenges facing professional bodies tasked with regulating conduct in an era of heated online discourse and deepening societal divisions.
As the debate continues, many are left to ponder the delicate balance between upholding free speech and safeguarding the trust that underpins the doctor-patient relationship—a balance that, in this case, has proven anything but simple.
