A British lawyer supposedly fighting antisemitism is really agreeing with antisemites that "anti-Zionism" is not offensive ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Friday, January 09, 2026

A British lawyer supposedly fighting antisemitism is really agreeing with antisemites that "anti-Zionism" is not offensive

A Daily Mail report on a British medical professional who posted offensive statements on social media, and the lawyer who is charging her for antisemitic speech, has a hidden assumption that is very dangerous: that extreme conspiracy theories about “Zionists” are legitimate political critique - and only become offensive if it turns out “Zionist” must mean “Jew.”

An NHS doctor posted antisemitic conspiracy theories on social media claiming Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks, a medical tribunal has heard.

Katie Nowell, barrister for the for the General Medical Council (GMC), said a complaint was received in February 2024 from the Jewish Medical Association (JMA) UK relating to posts on the doctor's X account.

Consultant anaesthetist Dr Najmiah Ahmad is alleged to have used her X account to repost two 'seriously offensive' comments that were motivated by racial or religious hostility.

One repost read: 'The Zionist owned-and-controlled mainstream media has suppressed this important story for years. Are you surprised? 9/11 was an inside job, The Zionist owned-and-controlled US government was complicit.'

A second post read: 'This should also be considered. 5 Dancing Zionists on 9/11 attacks.'

It was accompanied by an AI image showing the New York skyline with the Twin Towers in the background and a plane flying towards them. The image also showed a white van on a rooftop with five males wearing dark trousers and white shirts - typically associated with Hasidic Jews - celebrating the attack together with the blue Star of David.

Ms Nowell said the doctor, who was working at the Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust at the time, said the posts related to 'conspiracy theories' that Zionists were responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

She said the context was not the Palestinian conflict so the term Zionist would be considered by members of the public to be an 'overall term' for Jewish people generally.

Ms Nowell said the posts were offensive and objectively antisemitic because it suggested Jewish people were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, controlled the US government and media, and therefore they were an 'inside job'.

Ms Nowell said that the doctor had since provided a statement in which she accepted that the term Zionist could often be conflated with Jewish people generally and at times of 'heightened tension political language carries profound personal weight' and a 'focus on the humanitarian impact of military action neglected this reality and my actions caused junior colleagues to feel personally targeted - this was a serious professional failing.'

She said the doctor also accepted that well-knowns tropes used to 'promote hostility' against Jewish people included the conspiracy theory they were responsible for 9/11 and controlled media and government.

Giving evidence, Ahmad claimed she hadn't previously connected the term Zionist with Jewish identity after Ms Nowell said the term could be used to 'attack' Jews.

'I now understand that a lot of people who call themselves Zionists are also Jewish,' Ahmad said.

'But I know Jewish friends who don't want to be called Zionist.'

Here's the problem: The doctor, the article and even the barrister all seem to accept that if Dr. Ahmad was really only talking about Zionists and not Jews, then her statements would not be offensive.

Ms. Nowell is saying that because the word Palestinians wasn't used, then the word "Zionists" would be understood to refer to Jews and would therefore be offensive. But that means that if Ahmad had been able to prove that she really meant Zionists were behind 9/11 and "Zionists" control the mainstream media and "Zionists" control the US government, then this would be acceptable political speech.

Her position is identical to antisemites who claim to be only anti-Zionist.

For example, Dr Randa Abdel-Fattahan, a pro-Hamas Australian writer, was in the news recently for being disinvited to the Adelaide Writers Festival because of her offensive opinions. She had once tweeted this:

If you are a Zionist you have no claim or right to cultural safety.

And it is my duty as somebody who fights all forms of oppression and violence to deny you a safe space to espouse your Zionist racist ideology.

It is the duty of those who oppose racism, misogyny, homophobia and all forms of oppressive harm to ensure that every space Zionists enter is culturally unsafe for them.

Dr. Abdel Fattahan insists that she is not antisemitic and has nothing bad to say about Jews. But unhinged hate for "Zionists" is just as evil as unhinged hate for "Jews" - not only because the targets are nearly the same but also because the hate itself is inherently disgusting. It is just as offensive to have crazed hate for "Zionists," publicly calling for them to be demonized, as hate for Jews is.

It is functionally indistinguishable from antisemitism, not just because many Jews are Zionists, but because the structure of the hatred is identical.

By this standard, it would be acceptable to claim that Zionists staged 9/11 or control the world — as long as you’re careful not to say “Jews.”

That’s not justice. That’s moral laundering.

And that is the logic the General Medical Council has now implicitly endorsed.

They are not defending Jews from antisemitism. They are defending a rhetorical loophole - one that modern antisemites have long used to express the same hatred in rebranded form.