Purging Palestinian solidarity from the NHS
Government press release indicates anti-Palestinian
racism to become official policy, while worsening antisemitism in health care
SUMMARY
The 16th October 2025 press release, “Government takes urgent action to tackle antisemitism and other forms of racism in the NHS” issued by the Department of Health and Social Care, Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, is deeply concerning: it is a threat to equality, human rights and the mental well-being of the 1.5 million workers in the NHS. Not content with its ongoing political, diplomatic and military support for Israel, and its widespread repression of pro-Palestine protest, the government now seeks to entirely outlaw expression of support for Palestine within the NHS, with a series of divisive and authoritarian measures.
It is striking that there is no mention in the press release of Palestinians, or anti-Palestinian racism. There is also no context, it is as if the events of the last two years have not happened. There is also no recognition that the rise in anti-semitism can be attributed to the brutal assault on and mass starvation of Gaza by the Israeli military and the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, and our government’s ongoing support for Israel’s actions despite this.
We call on the government and the DHSC to immediately abandon this entire initiative – it is dangerous to the standing of the NHS and an assault on its workers. It is racist and authoritarian and will lead to significant harm to the well-being of staff and cohesion within the NHS.
Tackling racism in the NHS is vital, but it must recognise that all forms of racism are equally harmful to their victims, without weaponizing one form of racism to try to silence opposition to foreign policy objectives.
We demand the right to express solidarity and support for Palestine in the NHS, an immediate end to the repression of those doing so and the right to stand up to our government’s ongoing support for genocide.
The full statement is below.
Purging Palestinian solidarity from the NHS*
A statement by Doctors in Unite against the government’s measures to tackle antisemitism and other forms of racism in the NHS.
*A list of organisations endorsing the statement can be found at the end.
Repression of pro-Palestine solidarity in this country is key to the government’s strategy of support for Israel. It seeks to weaponise antisemitism yet again, now against health workers, aiming to completely suppress solidarity with Palestine within the NHS, in an effort to silence a highly critical and effective voice against its actions in the Middle East.
The government press release 1 mentions “antisemitism” 28 times, “Islamophobia” twice, and racism against everyone else is grouped under the catch-all term “other forms of racism”. No Palestinian, Muslim or Arab organisations were quoted in the press release, yet four (pro-Zionist) Jewish organisations are quoted. No Jewish groups who oppose Israel’s genocide or who hold anti-Zionist views were asked to comment, the government yet again creating the impression that all British Jews speak with one, pro-Israel voice. This stereotyping is itself a form of anti-semitism, exposing the emptiness of the government’s supposed anti-racism.
The press release speaks of the “scourge of antisemitism”, the need to “root out this problem”, “antisemitism has been allowed to flourish and thrive”, and “antisemitism in the NHS has been out of control”. Nothing is said about the extent of Islamophobia or racism against other minority groups within the NHS, let alone in these terms. We do not agree that antisemitism is being allowed to flourish and thrive or that it is out of control in the NHS. All racism is a scourge and should be rooted out. All forms of racism should be condemned and vigorously combatted. Like all forms of racism, antisemitism has increased significantly, but not more so than other forms of racism; to suggest otherwise is to exceptionalise it. This is deliberate by the government because it provides the justification for the repressive measures it seeks to impose here.
Racist incidents against both Muslims and Jews have increased sharply since October 2023, yet only antisemitism is emphasised. The press release mentions the recent horrific attack on the Manchester synagogue, but fails to mention other recent appalling attacks against Muslim and Asian communities, including two rapes, the stabbing of an Imam, serious assaults, arson and bomb threats against mosques.2 3 4 The “hierarchy of racisms” identified in the Forde inquiry5 into the Labour party while in opposition, is evidently alive and well in the Labour government.
The press release says the government plans to implement the following measures:
This is to be led by Lord John Mann, “the independent advisor on antisemitism” to the government. It should be noted that Lord Mann is a staunch advocate of the IHRA definition (see below) of antisemitism and has repeatedly stated that anti-Zionism is antisemitic. In 2017, he described antisemitism as "the worst of racisms". 6 This wrecks the credibility of any program to tackle racism.
While the “IHRA working definition of antisemitism” with its 11 examples, was formally adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016, its origins go back to 2004 and concerns about the "new antisemitism," involving criticism of Israel.7 The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) adopted a “working definition” in 2005 but its successor organisation the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) abandoned this in 2013 due to its misuse to silence legitimate speech,8 before it was resurrected and formally adopted by the IHRA in 2016.
The IHRA definition remains highly problematic and has been widely opposed by academics, human rights experts including Jewish experts 9, and civil society groups internationally. It has been criticised as “not fit for purpose” 10 and “used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism.”11 The original drafter of the definition said right-wing Jews are weaponizing the definition.12 The IHRA definition protects Israel, not Jews, and conflates anti-Zionism (eg opposition to the idea of a Jewish state) with antisemitism (hatred of Jews as individuals or a collective). It also diverts attention from the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians into accusations of antisemitism.
In terms of its legal standing, the IHRA definition says itself that it is “non-legally binding”. In addition, and importantly, the judgement in the recent case of Husain v Solicitors Regulation Authority in the High Court 12 substantially limits the application of several of the examples. Anti-Zionist beliefs caught within the IHRA examples were found to be not presumptively antisemitic and are largely protected by freedom of expression. In addition, while not in the IHRA definition, the judge also ruled that criticising Israel as an apartheid state practising systematic racism, is within the bounds of ‘legitimate political debate’.
It should be noted that adoption of the IHRA definition by the NHS also goes against the sentiment of a large proportion of Britain’s doctors. At the BMA’s annual conference in June, a motion was overwhelmingly carried (84% in favour, 7% against), which stated criticising the actions of the state of Israel is not inherently antisemitic.13 There is therefore likely to be widespread opposition by NHS staff to the adoption of the IHRA definition and significant legal challenges to its implementation, including in employment and disciplinary procedures in the NHS. It also has obvious implications for any enhanced antisemitism training being envisaged (see below). Legal action has already been commissioned by a health worker solidarity group against the adoption of the IHRA definition by NHS England.14
It should also be noted that while the government is intent on implementing the IHRA definition across the NHS, it is currently reviewing the current definition of Islamophobia. There are concerns that this is being watered down, with Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary stating that the new definition must not be seen to give Muslims “special treatment“,15 There are no ministerial statements of such considerations being applied to the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
This raises serious concerns: firstly, the “enhanced content” will use the IHRA definition to conflate antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Secondly, the antisemitism subject matter experts will be biased, selected only from those who support the IHRA definition. Jewish anti-Zionists, like holocaust survivors Stephen Kapos and Haim Bresheeth-Zabner, and educators like Ilan Pappe or Avi Shlaim, have spoken out consistently against Israel’s genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid policies.
Thirdly and this is extremely concerning, the enhanced training will be aligned with the core skills training framework. This defines the core statutory and mandatory knowledge, skills and behaviours expected of health and social care staff, without which staff may face disciplinary proceedings, loss of pay and career progression, and loss of professional registration and insurance indemnity. If we do not answer “the new assessment questions to test understanding” correctly and agree with the IHRA definition that anti-Zionism is antisemitism, we will fail to complete our CSTF training, with all of these possible repercussions. In other words, a political viewpoint in support of Israel and its ideology of Zionism, is to become part of statutory and mandatory “knowledge, skills and behaviour” for all 1.5 million health workers in this country, on pain of sacrificing their jobs and careers if they do not agree.
This will be rolled out “in light of recent successful approaches” to new guidance imposed by UCLH and Manchester Trust. Other NHS Trusts like Barts have implemented similar guidance which bans all political symbols at work, such as badges, symbols, jewellery or clothing depicting Palestine or in Palestinian colours, including watermelon symbols. One Trust has also banned the wearing of lanyards in the design of the keffiyeh, a Palestinian scarf and cultural item. These measures are to ensure “political neutrality”, and to avoid possible “distress or offence” to patients or other staff.
4a. Political neutrality
The Prime Minister has said he is a Zionist,16 while the Health Secretary has a long history of supporting Israel.17 Both have received large sums of money from Israel lobbyists,18 creating a conflict of interests over their support for Israel. The government’s foreign policy has been wholly partisan over Palestine, it has repeatedly expressed support for Israel, and continues to provide arms, diplomatic support and military cooperation with the Israeli military including real-time surveillance flights over Gaza.
When the Department of Health and Social Care flew the Israeli flag from its London headquarters in October 2023, it shattered any pretence of institutional neutrality over Palestine, and posted on X (twitter), “We are flying the flag of Israel at the Department of Health & Social Care in London. We stand in solidarity with the people of @Israel”.19 The post had a large photograph of the Israeli flag on the top of the building, and emojis of the Israeli flag, the British flag, and the Star of David, thus conflating the Jewish religion with the state of Israel. The official department governing the whole NHS has therefore engaged in a clear, unequivocal act of political solidarity with one side of an intensely polarized foreign conflict. From that point on, “neutrality” was broken across the NHS from the top down.
Officially sanctioned support for Ukraine by the government, DHSC and NHS Trusts also belies their so-called “neutrality”. Trusts encouraged staff to participate in events, meetings and fundraisers for Ukraine; Ukrainian flags and colours have been displayed in hospitals and on hospital buildings and Trusts have issued statements of solidarity and donated equipment to the people of Ukraine. The government has provided free NHS treatment to all Ukrainians fleeing the war.20 In contrast, there have been extraordinary difficulties and delays in small numbers of severely injured Palestinian children being allowed into Britain, even though all of their treatment was to be paid for privately. Between 30-50 children and families are now to be allowed in and will receive NHS care.21
When an NHS Trust says it must be "politically neutral," it is in practice, enforcing state-aligned neutrality. Supporting Ukraine aligns with the UK government's official foreign policy. Therefore, a Ukrainian flag badge is not interpreted by the Trust as a divisive political statement, but as a humanitarian gesture in line with official UK policy. It is seen as safe and non-controversial because it mirrors the state's position. Expressing solidarity with Palestine however, particularly in ways that criticize the Israeli government's actions, is a direct challenge to the government's de facto policy of support for Israel. Therefore, the Trust interprets it as a "political" and "divisive" act precisely because it deviates from the state's narrative and policy. The Trust's "neutrality" over global conflicts or moral positions is neutrality within the framework of the UK state’s foreign policy. It allows expression that aligns with the state and prohibits expression that challenges it. This is discrimination, wrapped in the language of safety and sensitivity.
It is important to understand that the “no politics” edict, also takes away everyone’s fundamental right to freedom of expression. No health worker can now advocate for a political cause, be it the genocide in Sudan or Congo or government policies over climate change. This is how imposing support for Zionism across the NHS takes away all our rights.
Legal action underway against the “no politics” ban in one NHS Trusts. Three staff members at Barts Health NHS Trust are suing the Trust 22 for its discriminatory policy silencing support for Palestine, after Barts implemented the policy earlier this year. The Trust threatened a senior nurse, who is Palestinian, with disciplinary action because he had a still-life artwork of fruit as his screen background which contained a watermelon, which could be “perceived as antisemitic” according to managers.
4b. Avoiding causing distress and offence
The DHSC’s action in flying the Israeli flag created a climate that is intimidating, hostile, and degrading to NHS staff who hold anti-Zionist or pro-Palestinian views. It institutionalized one perspective and marginalized the other, which it now seeks to entrench with its “enhanced training content”. Moreover, it amounts to endorsing the Israeli state's military actions in our name. When we wear a Palestine symbol like a pin badge it is precisely to say such actions are “not in our name”, but this is deemed political and potentially distressing and offensive.
Valuing the potential distress of one group over the distress of another.
The government and NHS Trusts are prioritising the potential distress of Jewish or Israeli patients or staff, who might be offended by a Palestinian symbol, while dismissing the actual, ongoing, and profound distress of Palestinian staff and patients and their allies, who feel silenced and unsupported by their own workplace. It signals to Palestinian staff that their grief, their fear for their families, and their solidarity with their people are less important than the potential discomfort of those who might disagree with them. This is selective empathy: some feelings are more valid and worthy of protection than others
Ukrainian symbols were allowed and encouraged, which undoubtedly could have been distressing or offensive to Russian staff members or patients. The fact they were allowed anyway demonstrates that the “potential for distress” rule is not absolute. It is a discriminatory rule applied to suppress one specific viewpoint.
The wish to wear a Palestinian symbol is a gesture of solidarity with the Palestinian people, including healthcare workers and patients. It is a call to uphold medical neutrality under the Geneva Conventions and international law. The fact that the UK government takes a side in this conflict does not strip us of our right to advocate for humanitarian principles, which are central to our work, and our fundamental moral and ethical responsibilities as healthcare workers. Furthermore, the rulings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) reinforce the fact that supporting Palestine, including wearing a Palestine symbol, is upholding international law, fundamental human rights, and international accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Insisting on a ban is wilful blindness to a severe humanitarian crisis and legal rulings on the prevention of genocide.
Prohibiting solidarity symbols has a chilling effect and prevents us from bringing our whole selves to work, stripping away part of our identity, leading to marginalisation and profound moral injury in our places of work.
So, we ask, how will pro-Palestine staff “always feel respected”, in the words of the press release, by the new uniform guidance? How can the new guidance possibly protect our “freedom to protest and speak out on political issues”, when the clear intention is to curtail those freedoms?
The deafening silence over anti-Palestinian racism
The government’s press release says nothing about the witch-hunt being conducted by some NHS managers and senior clinicians against health workers expressing solidarity with Palestine. Dozens, if not hundreds, of health workers up and down the country have been targeted, disproportionately from marginalised groups. Some have been suspended on the spot for failing to “show remorse”, for wearing a Palestinian symbol. Staff have been ambushed in corridors, pulled off wards and departments, bullied into “informal” meetings on their own with senior managers, and threatened with disciplinary proceedings. Others have been escorted off the premises and told to return to collect their belongings outside the building because they simply spoke about a workplace activity in support of Palestine. Wearing socks with a watermelon pattern, or hair ribbons in the Palestinian colours are offences warranting disciplinary proceedings.
The moral injury and psychological harm of this repression have been profound. Our primary duty as health workers is to preserve life. We have a moral and ethical duty to speak out against the causes of sickness, injury and death including deliberate mass starvation and genocide, the crime of crimes. We feel a profound sense of solidarity with health colleagues who are being murdered, detained and tortured, anywhere in the world. The trauma of being threatened by our employers for doing so is immeasurably worse for Palestinian colleagues, who may have lost family and friends in the Gaza genocide and who cannot display the smallest sign of their identity on pain of being victimised. We need to be able to share our feelings of horror and grief, which do not melt away as we walk through the door of the clinic or hospital. And what of our patients who may be going through the same feelings and may need to talk about them, especially those with mental health problems. Patients have said that staff have had to whisper their thanks to them when they have worn a Palestinian badge or cap to their clinic appointment.
Many of our colleagues have been seriously traumatised emotionally, resulting in weeks or months off sick. Others have had to change jobs, while some have left the NHS altogether, while still others have had their lives taken over by disciplinary hearings, grievance proceedings and responding to investigations by official regulators. None of these cases have involved clinical concerns about the doctors’ or nurses’ practice, yet thousands of hours of clinical time have been lost to the NHS as a result of this wave of repression. If patients, and patient organisations were to become aware of this and the resulting disruption to continuity of care for patients, and the increase in waiting times for treatments and consultations, they would be extremely concerned and understandably angry.
Anti-Palestinian racism has always been a feature of Zionism. It silences, excludes, erases, stereotypes, defames and dehumanizes Palestinians and their narratives.23 It is implicated in conflating support for Palestine with antisemitism, as is being done by government and the NHS hierarchy. In the press release Streeting speaks in the press release of “enforce[ing] a zero-tolerance policy to racism in healthcare”, yet he is presiding over the roll-out of anti-Palestinian racism across the NHS.
British health workers are mobilised and organised over Palestine – that is why we are being targeted.
Over the last two years, as we have seen the Israeli military commit war crime after war crime against hospitals and our colleagues and patients in Gaza, our outrage and grief has been channelled into effective protest and solidarity with Palestine. Thousands of health workers are mobilised in this country, with more joining in all the time. There are dozens of health worker solidarity groups across the country and there is a large, vocal “Health Bloc” at the big Palestine demonstrations each month, demanding an end to the bombing of hospitals and the killing of health workers. Moreover, the testimony of British doctors and nurses 24 who have gone to Gaza to work during the last two years has been very powerful in exposing the horrors of the genocide and the war crimes of the Israeli government and military. Health workers from other countries have done the same, bearing witness to what is happening on the ground in Gaza; their testimonies and photographic and video evidence have cut through the smokescreen of official denials and justifications, and mainstream media obfuscation designed to shield Israel from accountability and minimise the genocide.
Because of this mobilisation and solidarity, and the fact that health workers are among the most trusted workers in society, we have become targets for the government and Zionist groups, who are desperate to silence us in their efforts to defend Israel. Support for Palestine is treated as a worse offence than a serious clinical error, and must be crushed.
This is also why health workers are “doxxed” (publicly identified and smeared) by “Gnasherjew”, the Campaign Against Antisemitism and other pro-Israel groups, and reported to the police, medical and nursing regulators and to our employers, with demands that our employment is terminated and our professional registrations withdrawn. Pro-Israel main-stream media, such as the Telegraph and Daily Mail, carry high profile “hit-pieces” against doctors and nurses advocating for Palestine, exposing where they work, leading to online “pile-ons” and rape and death threats. The aim is the same – to silence us.
No NHS uniforms on protests
Wes Streeting has also demanded that no NHS worker should wear their uniforms to any protests,25 apart from those “directed at the Government with regards to NHS policies”. By uniform he means “scrubs”, the universal uniform of health workers globally. While this is ridiculous and unenforceable, it underlines the lengths to which he is prepared to go, to target health workers, as health workers, to try and silence us over the genocide.
We call on the government and the DHSC to immediately abandon this entire initiative – it is an assault on the NHS and its workers. It is racist and authoritarian and will lead to significant harm to the well-being of staff and cohesion within the NHS.
Tackling racism in the NHS is vital, but it must be done in ways that recognise all forms of racism are equally harmful to their victims, without weaponising one form of racism to pursue foreign policy objectives.
We demand the right to express solidarity and support for Palestine in the NHS, an end to the repression of those doing so and the right to stand up to our government’s ongoing support for genocide.
List of endorsing organisations
TBA
References/sources