NHS doctor 'whose posts claimed Jews were behind 9/11' tells tribunal: 'It's a foreign thing to learn about antisemitism'

The General Medical Council's barrister, Katie Nowell, told the hearing that a formal complaint had been lodged in February 2024 by the Jewish Medical Association UK over material posted on the doctor's X account.

Dr Ahmad, who was employed by Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust at the time of the alleged posts, is accused of reposting two comments described as "seriously offensive" and driven by racial or religious hostility.

The first repost allegedly 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 shared post referenced "Five dancing Zionists on 9/11 attacks" and featured an AI-generated image.

The image depicted the New York skyline with the Twin Towers visible and an aircraft approaching them, according to the tribunal.

It also showed five men positioned on a rooftop beside a white van, dressed in dark trousers and white shirts typically associated with Hasidic Jewish attire, appearing to celebrate the attack alongside a blue Star of David symbol.

Ms Nowell told the hearing that these posts promoted conspiracy theories suggesting Zionists bore responsibility for the attacks.

The GMC barrister argued that the posts were objectively antisemitic as they implied Jewish people orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and exercised control over American government and media institutions.

Ms Nowell noted that since the content did not relate to the Palestinian conflict, the public would interpret the term Zionist as referring to Jewish people more broadly.

The tribunal heard that Dr Ahmad had submitted a statement acknowledging that the word Zionist is frequently conflated with Jewish identity and that during periods of heightened tension, "political language carries profound personal weight".

She further accepted that her "focus on the humanitarian impact of military action neglected this reality" and that her actions had left junior colleagues feeling "personally targeted," which she described as "a serious professional failing".

Dr Ahmad maintained that she had used the social media platform as a research tool, reposting material to bookmark it for later reading after becoming "obsessed" with learning more about Zionism.

Giving evidence, she told the tribunal: "I would like the tribunal to know that it's a foreign thing for me to learn about antisemitism.

"It's not a southeast Asian thing to grow up learning about it in school. I had a steep learning curve."

She added: "At the time I reposted it I wanted to know what has Zionism got to with 9/11 - conspiracy or not conspiracy, I just wanted to know. I don't support any of this."

The doctor, who has since completed social media training and mentoring, affirmed: "I don't hate Jews."

However, Ms Nowell dismissed this explanation, arguing that Dr Ahmad had used X "much more extensively" and would have recognised her "deliberate" reposts were offensive.

The tribunal continues.

Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter