A British-Palestinian NHS doctor who described Israel as being 'humiliated' by the 7 October attacks has accused a medical tribunal of 'apparent bias' after it refused to stop proceedings against her.
The Allegations and Investigation
Dr Rahmeh Aladwan, a 31-year-old trainee trauma and orthopaedic surgeon, is being investigated by the General Medical Council (GMC) over alleged anti-Semitic and pro-Hamas comments posted on her social media accounts. The interim orders tribunal, expected to last three days, will rule on whether restrictions need to be placed on her medical registration while the investigation continues.
Dr Aladwan arrived at the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) in Manchester wearing the same gold necklace with a number seven charm that she had worn at a previous hearing last month. She has previously shared photos of this jewellery online, describing it as 'celebratory'.
Controversial Social Media Posts
Among the posts under investigation is one that stated: 'October 7. The day Israel was humiliated. Their supremacy shattered at the hands of the children they forced out of their homes.' Other posts allegedly described Israelis as 'worse than Nazis' and referred to London's Royal Free Hospital as a 'Jewish supremacy cesspit'.
This is not the first time Dr Aladwan has faced tribunal proceedings. A previous interim orders tribunal in September decided not to impose any restrictions on her registration, finding that her posts did not amount to 'bullying or harassment' and that complaints were insufficient to establish a real risk to patients.
Political Intervention and Legal Arguments
The case has attracted significant political attention. Health Secretary Wes Streeting described the comments as 'sickening' and said they had no place in the NHS, promising to overhaul how medical regulators investigate antisemitism cases. Following this intervention, the GMC re-referred her case back to the MPTS.
At today's hearing, Dr Aladwan's counsel, Kevin Saunders, applied for the tribunal panel to recuse itself on grounds of 'apparent bias', though not 'actual bias'. He argued that the case had attracted substantial publicity, ministerial intervention, and involved lobby groups, creating a risk that the hearing would be considered a 'foregone conclusion'.
Mr Saunders claimed the GMC had bowed to pressure from the Campaign Against Antisemitism and that Mr Streeting had sought to 'undermine the rule of law'. However, Emma Gilsenan, representing the GMC, argued that the defence was attempting to re-litigate previous arguments and that there was no appearance of bias.
The tribunal panel rejected the application to recuse itself, as well as a subsequent application for an adjournment. If the GMC concludes Dr Aladwan has a case to answer following this interim hearing, it could eventually refer her to a full medical practitioners tribunal.
