Glasgow University rector cleared of antisemitism by watchdog

Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah, Rector of the University of Glasgow, has been cleared of antisemitism allegations after an investigation by the UK’s medical regulatory authorities.

The case drew significant public attention. The General Medical Council (GMC) brought the complaint, which a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service panel heard over several days.

The allegations focused on an opinion piece Dr Abu-Sittah wrote, as well as a handful of social media posts about the Gaza conflict.

The GMC said parts of this material might be read as endorsing violence or expressing antisemitic views, which raised questions about whether he should continue practising medicine.

His outspoken political stance has made him both popular and controversial

Dr Abu-Sittah rejected the claims outright. What he’d written was political commentary, he said, aimed at Israeli government policy rather than Jewish people.

The tribunal disagreed with the GMC. Panel members decided that any reasonable person reading the material wouldn’t see it as promoting violence, backing a banned group, or being antisemitic. They threw out the case without imposing any sanctions.

Dr Abu-Sittah is a British-Palestinian plastic surgeon who’s spent years working in war zones.

Glasgow students elected him Rector last year. This is mostly a ceremonial position that involves chairing university court meetings and representing student interests to management.

His outspoken political stance has made him both popular and controversial since taking the role.

His detractors […] questioned whether someone in his position should be quite so publicly political

He called the tribunal’s decision a “vindication” and believed it was part of a broader campaign to silence critics of Israel’s actions in Gaza.

He said: “This complaint forms part of a broader lawfare strategy which aims to instrumentalise the regulatory processes to intimidate, silence and exhaust those who speak out against injustice in Palestine”.

Abu-Sittah’s supporters, including students and free speech campaigners, saw it as proof that due process works and that professionals shouldn’t face career consequences for their political opinions.

His detractors felt the whole affair had been damaging and questioned whether someone in his position should be quite so publicly political.

This case fits into wider arguments across British universities right now about how much political activism is appropriate for academic leaders and where the line lies between personal beliefs and professional responsibility.