‘Relentless’: How UK Lawyers for Israel targets pro-Palestinian voices

When academics Ghazala Mir and Tarek Younis agreed to speak about Islamophobia in an online event hosted by a leading UK mental health association, the last thing they expected was to be de-platformed. 

In August 2024, Mir, a professor at the University of Leeds medical school, and Younis, a senior lecturer in psychology at Middlesex University, were invited by the British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies (BABCP), the UK’s leading professional body for cognitive and behavioural psychotherapists, to deliver a webinar to therapists on Islamophobia and mental health. 

“Our plan was to engage in a meaningful dialogue on the impact of Islamophobia, and to highlight the importance of ensuring our mental health services don’t worsen the traumas already experienced by Muslim patients,” said Younis, who is also a clinical psychologist.

But trouble began for the pair when they co-wrote an article promoting the event for BABCP’s official magazine, which was also published online as a blog post. 

“As part of the event, we publicised it on the blog, which had been approved by the group’s communications officer,” said Younis.

“They had no issue with us including a citation stating that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.”

But not everyone welcomed the webinar’s message. After the BABCP began advertising the event, a member and a non-member filed a complaint, accusing the association of promoting extreme left-wing propaganda.

BABCP initially found no grounds to remove the article. But when the pro-Israeli UK Lawyers for Israel group, or UKLFI, complained with a 23-page dossier listing pro-Palestine social media posts made by Younis and Mir, the matter escalated further.

The dossier alleged that Younis and Mir had shared antisemitic content – allegations that both academics firmly deny. BABCP took down the article, and the organisation’s CEO apologised for referencing the situation in Gaza as a “genocide”.

But UKLFI did not stop there. It then lodged further complaints against the two academics with their respective professional bodies.

“We were both subjected to complaints,” said Younis. “It was clear this wasn’t just about a blog post anymore.”

After seeking legal advice, Mir’s employer, the University of Leeds, found no evidence of antisemitism or grounds for disciplinary action.

BABCP told Younis that UKLFI had also lodged a complaint against him with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), the UK regulator responsible for setting standards of training, conduct, and fitness to practise for health and care professionals. Based on his pro-Palestinian views, the complaint questions whether the Canadian-born academic and therapist is “fit to practise”

Middle East Eye understands that HCPC’s investigation against Younis remains ongoing, with records indicating that he is still registered with the regulatory body.

BABCP declined to comment.

Charity Commission probes UKLFI

Ghazala Mir and Tarek Younis were not the first medical professionals to be targeted by the UKLFI – and nor were they the last.

While Israel has been waging a devastating war on Gaza, killing more than 64,000 Palestinians in an act experts  and the UN commission on Israel and Palestine now says meets the legal definition and threshold of genocide, a group of British-based lawyers has been waging a battle on another front: the public discourse around Palestine.

Since it was founded in 2011, UKLFI has been at the forefront of efforts to discredit and pressure individuals and organisations that criticise Israeli policies or express solidarity with Palestinians.

Its team of lawyers, led by Jonathan Turner, has made a name for itself by firing off complaints and legal threats targeting institutions including charities, universities, hospitals and professional associations.

The group has led high-profile campaigns against expressions of support for Palestine including:

– Sending legal letters to Tower Hamlets council over Palestine flags on lampposts

– Pressuring music festivals to cancel performances by Irish rap group Kneecap

– Making a council in Hertfordshire cancel a kite-making workshop run by a Palestinian

– Warning ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan over pursuing war crimes charges against Israeli leaders

– Threatening legal action against the UK government over its partial suspension of arms exports licences to Israel.

The last of these, in September 2024, proved too much for some of its strongest supporters, prompting the resignation of Lord Carlile, one of the group’s longstanding patrons.

In May, Turner prompted outrage when he suggested that the famine in Gaza caused by Israel’s aid blockade would reduce obesity rates in the strip and increase life expectancy.

The organisation has two branches. The first is UKLFI itself, a not-for-profit company focused on legal advocacy that spearheads the campaigns and legal manoeuvres in support of Israel.

The second is the UKLFI Charitable Trust, a separate registered charity which it says supports educational initiatives aligned with the objectives of UKLFI and aims to “promote racial harmony for the public benefit by the elimination of antisemitism by providing legal support”.

This second arm is technically unable to engage in political lobbying or legal interventions due to UK charity laws, but the two organisations are so closely intertwined that it is sometimes hard to distinguish the work of one from the other.

In July, a spokesperson for the Charity Commission confirmed to MEE that it is investigating the UKLFI Charitable Trust over its relationship with UKLFI.

UKLFI makes no secret of its ambitions and tactics, stating that it aims to “use the law to counter attempts to undermine, attack and/or delegitimise Israel, Israeli organisations, Israelis and/or supporters of Israel”, and for “creating a supportive climate of opinion in the United Kingdom towards Israel”.

The group posts details of its perceived successes and victories on its website and has been at the forefront of defending Israel in the public domain, even as condemnation of the genocide in Gaza has continued to grow. Much of its campaigning is picked up and amplified by sympathetic media outlets.

Natasha Hausdorff, who serves as the UKLFI Charitable Trust’s legal director and has emerged as the most public face of the group, regularly appears in the media and at pro-Israeli public events.

In April, she made headlines, clashing with Labour MP Emily Thornberry during a fraught exchange in front of the parliamentary foreign affairs committee as part of its inquiry into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Hausdorff is also scheduled this Thursday to interview Johnnie Moore, the head of the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), an Israeli- and US-backed organisation which has faced widespread criticism over its aid distribution operations in Gaza. 

‘It always starts with a letter’

Since the start of Israel’s war on Gaza in October 2023, following the Hamas-led attacks in southern Israel in which about 1,200 Israelis were killed, UKLFI has increased its campaigning and its weaponisation of complaints, according to documents seen by MEE and analysis of UKLFI’s website.

This has included regular threats to public institutions and regulatory bodies, amid a surge in public support and sympathy for Palestinians facing bombardment, starvation and an Israeli-inflicted humanitarian catastrophe.

Typically, these campaigns begin with a legalistic and attention-grabbing letter.

MEE interviewed multiple lawyers for this piece. They all refused to comment publicly on UKLFI’s tactics, citing concerns that doing so would conflict with their own ongoing legal battles involving the organisation.

‘What makes UKLFI insidious isn’t just the legal threats themselves, but the veneer of legitimacy lent to them by their patrons’

– London-based barrister

But one London-based lawyer described the group as “pernicious” and “relentless” in their targeting of individuals who speak up on Palestine. 

“It always starts with a letter,” the lawyer said. “But this is no ordinary letter. It has UKLFI’s header and a list of patrons on the first page. And these are no ordinary patrons. We are talking about the creme de la creme of Britain’s legal establishment.

“Any lawyer who sees their letter would take it seriously, purely on the basis of who acts as their patrons.”

Nine of UKLFI’s 10 patrons are qualified barristers. Six are sitting members of the House of Lords.

They include Lord Dyson, a former Master of the Rolls – the second-most senior judicial position in England and Wales – and Supreme Court judge; Lord Pannick, one of Britain’s most prominent barristers with a leading practice in constitutional and human rights law; Baroness Deech, a life peer and former principal of St Anne’s College, Oxford, known for her work on antisemitism and Holocaust restitution; and Lord Howard, a former Conservative Party leader and home secretary.

A second lawyer, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said that going up against UKLFI’s patrons would be “the last thing I would want to do”, adding: “Any in-house lawyer or legal firm would take the threat seriously because of the names associated with UKLFI.”

The letters sent by UKLFI often include warnings suggesting that the organisation or individual to whom they are addressed is breaching equalities laws – typically over allegations of discrimination against Jewish people – or, more chillingly, the Terrorism Act, an accusation made easier since the proscription of Hamas by the UK government in 2021. 

But beyond its legal letters and publicised victories, lawyers familiar with UKLFI’s campaigns say the organisation’s real strength lies in the perception of legal authority it projects.

“What makes UKLFI insidious isn’t just the legal threats themselves, but the veneer of legitimacy lent to them by their patrons,” said a third London-based barrister.

“It gives this fringe legal activism an air of authority it doesn’t deserve.” 

A fourth barrister described UKLFI’s letters as “rage bait”, adding: “They rarely get their hands dirty in court, but they still manage to shift the balance of power in debates over Palestine.

“A local dispute can suddenly seem like a legal minefield once UKLFI inserts itself. That change in perceived risk is often enough to shut things down without a single case ever being filed.”

The letters, according to the fourth lawyer who spoke to MEE, are often designed to “freak people out”.

“They exploit institutional risk-aversion. The threats are rarely backed up by litigation – they’re designed to make people afraid.”

How UKLFI targets the NHS

UKLFI has shown particular interest in recent years in targeting hospital trusts and their staff, many of whom are sympathetic to Palestine, especially as hospitals and medical workers in Gaza have faced the full force of Israel’s military assault.

These threats have led to a London hospital banning staff from wearing Palestine badges; another hospital removing artwork by Gaza schoolchildren; and a London hospital referring a midwife to Prevent – more than a year after she stopped working for them.

Ahmad Baker is an NHS nurse working for Barts Health Trust in east London, an area with a large Muslim population.

Baker, who has worked in healthcare for over a decade, found himself in trouble after his bosses accused him of antisemitism. The reason? He used a still-life painting (below) that included a watermelon as a background during a video meeting.

“It wasn’t a cartoon or a political symbol. It was a realistic still-life painting,” said Baker. “But because I was standing in front of it, the watermelon suddenly became a problem.”

Images of watermelons, which were widely grown and harvested in Gaza prior to the current war and whose colours are evocative of the colours of the Palestinian flag, have long been used as symbols of support for Palestinian resistance to Israel’s occupation.

When the Israeli government banned the Palestine flag in the late 1960s, Palestinians would sometimes display the fruit as a subtle act of defiance. 

After the meeting, a senior trust executive instructed Baker’s manager to tell him to remove the background, saying that it was “potentially antisemitic”, according to the senior nurse.

Baker challenged the instruction, but soon received an email from the executive himself, copied to several other senior staff, warning him to comply or face disciplinary action.

“It was a clear threat: comply or be disciplined,” Baker said. “All because of a fruit bowl.”

Baker did not comply.

But the pressure, Baker said, did not initally come from executives at his trust, but from UKLFI lobbying that was calculated to trigger fear among executives.

“I wasn’t even the recipient of their letters. But suddenly, emails were going around warning staff not to wear watermelon badges or any Palestine-related symbols. The executive team was hyper-aware of media scrutiny and UKLFI’s influence.”

The trust later announced a change to its uniform policy, banning all political symbols – a change Baker and his colleagues believe was triggered directly by UKLFI’s campaign and media pressure.

“This wasn’t about neutrality,” Baker said. “It was about caving to a political lobby. They pushed the trust to take a side – and the side they took was not ours.”

Baker and other staff raised concerns internally, writing to the trust’s chief executive and attending meetings to challenge the policy changes.

But while they were being promised dialogue, UKLFI had already posted a victory statement on its website.

“I wrote to the chief executive raising concerns,” said Baker. “He replied saying I’d raised valid points and promised to speak more. But the next day, the new policy was live – and UKLFI had already been celebrating it a week earlier.

“It felt like absolute betrayal – like we were being played.”

A spokesperson for the Barts NHS Health Trust denied that “UKLFI or any other external organisation was involved in the internal process” to change the trust’s uniform policy.

“UKLFI raised complaints on behalf of a number of Jewish patients who wished to remain anonymous. At the time we had already commenced a review of our uniform policy in anticipation that we would be rolling out new NHS uniforms for our staff,” said the spokesperson.

One prominent medical figure who has found himself repeatedly targeted by UKLFI is the celebrated British-Palestinian surgeon Ghassan Abu Sitta.

Abu Sitta was one of the first British surgeons to work in Gaza and bear witness to Israel’s assault on civilians, hospitals and medical workers.

But since returning, he has been the subject of UKFLI complaints to the General Medical Council (GMC), the UK’s main standards body regulating medical professionals.

UKLFI attempted to have Abu Sitta suspended, but a GMC tribunal struck down the complaint. If the GMC suspended Abu Sitta, he would temporarily be barred from practicing medicine and be stopped from working with NGOs who have permission to operate inside Gaza. 

A spokesperson for the GMC confirmed to MEE that Abu Sitta is “currently registered with a license to practice” medicine.  

But UKLFI’s interventions have affected Abu Sitta’s advocacy work. Several institutions have cancelled or blocked events at which he was due to speak, framing his presence as controversial despite his international reputation in humanitarian medicine and the pressing urgency of the situation in Gaza.

UKLFI also sent a letter to the University of Glasgow, where Abu Sitta was elected rector in 2024, in which it criticised his pledge to remove the controversial IHRA definition of antisemitism and claimed that he had “commemorated terrorism” in a series of social media posts.

UKLFI ‘bullies individuals’

Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, a co-founder of Jewish Voice for Labour, has also had several run-ins with UKLFI.

She describes it as an “effective” organisation that has weaponised the law to “intimidate and bully individuals or organisations in the defence of Israel”.

Wimborne-Idrissi said: “What makes them so effective is the way they use legal-sounding jargon to create the impression that a venue or institution is in breach of some law. They pick and choose whatever legislation they think can work for them.

“It might be the Public Order Act, the Equalities Act, the Prevent Duty, and now they’re even using the Terrorism Act. That has effectively become the government’s chosen weapon against Palestine solidarity activism. They’ll use anything that works.”

Wimborne-Idrissi believes a key reason why UKLFI has been effective is that most institutions or venues that receive its letters are “simply not equipped to handle” the allegations that it raises.

“When they receive a threatening letter from a group claiming to act on behalf of Jewish people – saying Jewish people are at risk, feel threatened, feel unsafe – many organisations will simply back down.

“If it’s a question of whether or not to host a guitarist, a singer, or a theatre group – and they’re told, ‘We’ll shut you down. We’ll take you to court. You’re breaching the Equality Act or failing in your duties as a public body’ – or even worse – ‘You’re violating terrorism legislation’ – most people would rather avoid the trouble.

“So, institutions often just back down, and the event is quietly cancelled without explanation. That’s what makes this tactic so effective – and so dangerous.”

On its website, UKLFI has toolkits that show its supporters how to challenge expressions of support for Palestine, including a section dedicated to teaching students how to respond to pro-Palestine initiatives, such as support for the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign, on campus. 

Last year, St Andrews University dismissed Stella Maris from her role as rector after UKLFI had complained to the Scottish university about an email she sent to all students in November 2023, which described Israel as an “apartheid state” and called for an urgent ceasefire in Gaza.

A year later, St Andrews reinstated Maris after an independent inquiry found the university’s response to be “disproportionate”.  

Reflecting on her ordeal, Maris said the issue goes beyond censorship.

“UKLFI’s primary goal is not just to object to language,” she said, “but to redefine it – and to create an environment where universities feel compelled to act swiftly, not out of moral clarity, but out of fear. Fear of headlines, donors, legal threats.”

“Critical thought gives way to institutional risk aversion, and people like me – especially those of us from already marginalised communities – become expendable.”

A spokesperson for St Andrews University acknowledged that the university had received a letter from UKLFI but said it had not engaged with the group and had not circulated a statement which UKFLI had asked it to share with its students. 

The spokesperson said claims that UKLFI had influenced its action against Maris were “without foundation” and said her dismissal was because she had been found to have breached her responsibilities as a charity trustee.

“This is purely a matter of governance, and has nothing to do with Israel or Gaza, or her views on that subject, which we have repeatedly defended her rights as an individual to express,” the spokesperson said.

Action against UKLFI

The European Legal Support Centre (ELSC) is a legal organisation created to support individuals or groups targeted for their pro-Palestine work which has increasingly found itself drawn into skirmishes with UKLFI.

A spokesperson for ELSC said it had handled dozens of cases involving the group and described it as running a “systematic campaign to silence dissent against Israel’s genocide in Gaza”.

The spokesperson said UKLFI had “flooded” British institutions with “complaints against NHS workers, lawyers, students, trade unions, and even small businesses expressing solidarity, triggering gruelling months-long investigations”.

“Their explicit goal: to threaten and exhaust people into silence. By targeting every level of society, they seek to extinguish the fundamental right to oppose genocide.

“UKLFI has directly contributed to Britain’s climate of intimidation, mirroring the state of Israel’s tactics of rendering conditions to show solidarity with Palestine increasingly impossible and increasingly detrimental by forcing people to make substantial personal sacrifices – professional, financial and psychological.” 

These concerns have prompted ELSC to partner with the Public Interest Law Centre to lodge a complaint against UKLFI with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, accusing it of threatening people with legal action to suppress support for Palestine.

A spokesperson for UKLFI defended the group’s activities and said it encouraged free speech.

“However, if people appear to be acting unlawfully, for example by expressing support for terrorism in breach of counter-terrorism legislation or harassing other people in breach of the Equality Act, we may report our concerns to regulators, police or other bodies as appropriate,” said the spokesperson.

The spokesperson said UKLFI was aware of the complaint raised against it to the SRA.

“As far as we can make out from the much redacted version we have seen, the complaint is ill-informed and misconceived,” the spokesperson said.

Many of those spoken to by MEE who complain that their pro-Palestinian activism has been suppressed suggest that, regardless of the precise role played by UKLFI, the group’s activities have contributed to a broader culture in which many organisations prioritise a perceived threat to their institutional reputation over their own employees’ freedom of expression.

For Baker, the decision made by Barts Health Trust to change its uniform policy had created “dangerous precedents”. He believes UKLFI strategically targeted Barts, as a high-profile hospital trust, to set an example for other major institutions in the UK.

“Barts is one of the biggest NHS trusts in the country. If UKLFI could pressure us into compliance, other trusts would follow. That’s why they went after us – and why they celebrated so publicly when we gave in,” said Baker.

Baker and supportive colleagues have continued speaking out. He says they are fundraising towards launching a legal campaign to try to reverse the changes to the trust’s uniform policy.

“Our case is not just about a uniform policy. It is about the right to be seen, to be heard, and to belong,” he said.

Barts’ spokesperson said: “Our updated uniform policy states that staff are not expected to wear or display political symbols, including badges and slogans or flags on clothing in order to uphold political neutrality, creating an inclusive culture at work, and a safe space for patients in their time of need.”

For Ghazala Mir, months later, the impact of UKLFI’s complaints is lasting and still impacts her on a personal and professional level.  

Mir believes the episode, which was amplified by media coverage, emboldened others critical of her work on creating culturally adaptive therapy for minority groups.

She said a complaint against her work had subsequently been filed with an NHS mental health services provider for whom she had developed a Muslim-focused therapy programme by the National Secular Society, which campaigns against religious influence in public life.

“The complaint put pressure on the therapists working on the programme, which is evidence-based and proven to show results, which was unfair and demonstrative of the chilling effect groups like UKLFI have,” Mir said.