MSF accuses pro-Israel group of ‘disinformation campaign’ after bid to have medical charity proscribed over Gaza terror claims

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), the international humanitarian charity that provides emergency medical care in conflict zones, disaster areas and countries affected by endemic diseases across the world, has hit out at a “disinformation campaign” after false allegations attempted to tie it to terrorism and to have it named a proscribed group under British law. The charity, widely known as Doctors Without Borders, said it had been dealing with “false allegations” for months before a report in The Telegraph revealed that Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood was being urged to “proscribe” MSF. Such a move would make it illegal to be a member of the organisation or to support it, and could see MSF labelled an “extremist” organisation. The basis of the complaint, submitted by the pro-Israel lawfare group UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), is claimed links between MSF and militant groups in Palestine. In the Telegraph article, UKLFI pointed to two individuals described as former employees of MSF. One, a former physiotherapist, was claimed as a “martyr commander” by a military group in Gaza. Another, an MSF driver, was accused by the Israeli military of being a sniper for Hamas. However, TFN understands that the concerns raised relate not to staff members employed directly by the UK-registered charity, but rather to allegations about the charity’s due diligence in relation to its work with and support for partner MSF organisations. At least 15 MSF staff have been killed in Gaza since October 2023, and MSF has consistently called for an impartial investigation into the killings of healthcare staff, including its own members, at the hands of the Israeli military. The development has provoked alarm among humanitarian organisations, which fear that basing terrorism accusations on the actions of individual employees could criminalise impartial medical aid and leave civilian populations without vital care in some of the world’s most dangerous places.

The complaint against MSF has been lodged by UK Lawyers for Israel, a legal advocacy group that has previously used litigation to challenge perceived threats to Israel and to press for stricter action against those accused of supporting Palestinian militancy. In its submission, UKLFI said it had assembled evidence raising serious questions about people employed by MSF, the organisations with which it works, and whether adequate safeguards had been put in place to ensure that charitable resources could not be exploited by terrorist organisations. “We are not questioning legitimate humanitarian medical work. But humanitarian status cannot place an organisation beyond proper scrutiny,” a UKLFI spokesman told The Telegraph. The group said it had asked the Charity Commission and the Fundraising Regulator to investigate MSF UK, and had submitted its evidence to the Home Secretary for consideration under the Terrorism Act. Under UK law, proscription is an extreme sanction: it is a criminal offence to belong to or support a proscribed organisation, to wear its uniform or display its emblem, or to arrange meetings in support of it. If MSF were proscribed, its UK operations would be severely constrained, its assets could be frozen and anyone providing financial or material support could face prosecution. The move would also carry profound symbolic weight, marking the first time a major international medical charity had been classified alongside terrorist groups. UKLFI’s complaint is understood to focus on two dead individuals: a former MSF physiotherapist in Gaza who was later described as a martyr commander by a militant group, and a former MSF driver accused by the Israeli military of being a sniper for Hamas. Neither individual has been named publicly in the complaint, and no court or tribunal has found MSF liable for their actions. The allegations have not been independently verified, and MSF has said it is confident in its recruitment and vetting procedures. Critics of such lawfare argue that it seeks to weaponise legal processes to delegitimise humanitarian actors, while supporters insist that charities must be held to account for any links to armed groups.

In a strongly worded statement, MSF condemned the “intentional spread” of false allegations and unequivocally refuted the claims made by Israeli authorities that it knowingly hired people with “ties to terrorism”. “MSF would never knowingly employ anyone involved in military activities, which contradicts our core values and ethics,” the charity said. “The MSF staff members whom Israel has alleged to have ‘ties to terrorism’ were only reported as such to our organization after they had been killed. If Israeli authorities had reliable information about any MSF staff involvement in military activity, they never shared it with us before their deaths. For months, MSF has been the target of a disinformation campaign, and we strongly condemn the intentional spread of false allegations.” The statement reflects the core humanitarian principles of neutrality and impartiality that have guided MSF since its founding in 1971. The organisation provides medical care based solely on need, regardless of race, religion, political affiliation or military status, and it expects its staff to adhere strictly to medical ethics. MSF argued that in conflict zones it is often necessary to recruit local staff who can reach besieged populations, and that no humanitarian organisation can guarantee that every individual employed in a war zone has an unblemished background, especially when formal records have been destroyed by years of conflict. But the charity said it had robust safeguards in place and had never been provided with evidence that would have justified removing the two individuals from their roles before they died. MSF also drew attention to the heavy price its personnel have paid in Gaza: at least 15 MSF staff members have been killed since October 2023, and the charity has repeatedly asked for independent, impartial investigations into those deaths. It has accused the Israeli military of striking health facilities and killing medical workers, and has called on all parties to respect international humanitarian law.

The allegations come against the backdrop of a devastating war in Gaza that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and reduced much of the enclave to rubble. Since October 2023, when Hamas led an attack into southern Israel that killed around 1,200 people and took more than 250 hostages, Israel has launched a military offensive that has killed more than 40,000 people in Gaza, according to the Hamas-run health ministry; the UN has said the figures are credible. The health system in Gaza has been systematically dismantled, with hospitals damaged or destroyed, medical supplies blocked, and hundreds of healthcare workers killed. In such conditions, MSF and other aid agencies have struggled to provide even basic care. The charity has repeatedly documented attacks on hospitals and clinics, including strikes that have killed its own staff while they were treating patients. MSF has called for an impartial investigation into the killings of healthcare staff at the hands of the Israeli military, saying that medical personnel and facilities are protected under the Geneva Conventions and must never be targeted. The UKLFI complaint, by contrast, seeks to turn the spotlight onto MSF itself, accusing the charity of failing to ensure that its resources are not exploited by armed groups. Israeli officials have long accused Hamas of embedding its fighters and infrastructure within civilian institutions, including hospitals, and have claimed that some aid workers have participated in the October 7 attack or subsequent hostilities. Most of these claims have been disputed or remain unproven, and MSF says it has never knowingly employed anyone involved in military activities. Humanitarian organisations operating in Gaza say they are caught between an Israeli military offensive that has killed their colleagues and legal challenges that threaten to cut off their funding and criminalise their work. In this charged environment, even unsubstantiated allegations can have serious consequences for the delivery of aid to a population facing famine and disease.

The Charity Commission, which regulates charities in England and Wales, has not made any findings into the complaint against MSF UK. A spokesman told TFN: “We take very seriously any alleged links between a charity and terrorism or unlawful extremism. We are aware of concerns raised about Médecins Sans Frontières UK and its trustees’ oversight of relationships with partner organisations, some of which are alleged to have links to proscribed groups. We are actively assessing the concerns raised to determine the appropriate next steps.” The wording is significant: it suggests that the regulator is examining not whether MSF itself is a terrorist organisation, but whether the charity’s trustees failed in their legal duty to protect charitable assets from being diverted to improper purposes. If the Commission opens a statutory inquiry, it can compel the production of documents, interview trustees, issue official warnings, freeze bank accounts, appoint interim managers and even remove trustees. It could also make recommendations about vetting and due diligence. The Fundraising Regulator, which handles complaints about fundraising conduct, has also been asked to investigate, though it is unclear what fundraising-specific issues have been raised. MSF UK is one of the largest and most respected medical charities in Britain, with a global reputation built on decades of work in wars, famines and epidemics. A proscription order under the Terrorism Act would be a step of last resort, requiring the Home Secretary to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that MSF is concerned in terrorism. Legal experts have said that the evidence described by UKLFI—two dead employees with alleged militant links—would fall far short of that threshold. The Home Office has not publicly commented on the submission, and Shabana Mahmood has not indicated whether she will consider it. The Charity Commission’s assessment is ongoing, and no decision has been made. MSF has said it welcomes legitimate scrutiny but rejects false allegations, and has indicated that it will cooperate with regulators to demonstrate the integrity of its work.

The campaign to have MSF proscribed has been met with deep concern by humanitarian and human rights organisations, which warn that it could set a dangerous precedent. If a medical charity can be placed on a terrorist list because of allegations about two former employees in a war zone, then no aid organisation could safely operate in any conflict-affected country. Humanitarian action depends on the ability to negotiate access, hire local staff and move supplies across front lines; it also depends on the perception that aid workers are neutral and impartial. Accusations of ties to terrorism, even when baseless, can make aid workers targets and cause governments to cut funding. MSF has said that the “disinformation campaign” is designed to discredit its work and to deflect attention from the killing of medical personnel in Gaza. The charity has repeatedly called for an independent investigation into the deaths of its staff and has urged the international community to uphold the protections guaranteed by international humanitarian law. It has also pointed out that the UKLFI complaint was made under the Terrorism Act, a legal framework designed to combat organisations that plan, participate in or encourage acts of terrorism, not to regulate the hiring practices of medical charities. The outcome of the Charity Commission’s assessment and any Home Office review will be closely watched, not only by MSF but by the entire aid sector. For now, MSF says it remains committed to its mission: providing medical care to those who need it most, including the people of Gaza, where the health system has been pushed to the brink of collapse. The charity has said it will not be deterred by what it calls false allegations. Whether the UK government chooses to act on the complaint remains to be seen, but the case has already highlighted the fragility of the humanitarian space in an era of increasing politicisation and lawfare. What is at stake, MSF and its supporters argue, is not just the reputation of one charity, but the ability of neutral, impartial medical organisations to operate in the world’s most dangerous places.