Ghassan Abu Sitta is a British surgeon, and the rector of Scotland’s University of Glasgow.
However, he’s also an extremist who’s expressed support for Hamas, described Gazans protesting the Gaza terror group’s authoritarian rule as “traitors”, and participated in a Hamas press conference in Oct. 2023 where he falsely blamed Israel for the Al-Ahli hospital explosion.
Abu Sitta also spoke at a ceremony in Beirut, in Nov. 2023, commemorating the first anniversary of the death of Maher Al-Yamani, co-founder of the PFLP terror group.
His record also includes a repost on X, on Oct. 8, 2023, the day after Hamas’ mass murder, rape, torture and mutilation in southern Israel, urging Palestinian civilians to “fight back” and “die in dignity”.
Yet, despite of his record of promoting the propaganda of proscribed terror groups, and encouraging violence, some British media outlets continue to interview him – seeking his views on medical and humanitarian issues – in reports about Israeli wars against Hamas and Hezbollah, omitting his extremism, while presenting him as an impartial observer.
The latest example was in a broadcast at Channel 4 News by their international editor Lindsey Hilsum (“‘Her teachers wept’: Lebanese father mourns 11-year-old killed by Israeli missile”, March 16), who interviewed Abu Sitta in Lebanon.
In addition to completely erasing his pro-terror background, the broadcast failed to even include his name – referring to Abu Sitta merely as a “British surgeon”.
We tagged the Ch. 4 News journalist in a post on X:
She responded by telling us that they would correct the report to note his name.
A few hours later, the report was amended accordingly – both with text and an additional voiceover by Hilsum.
Unfortunately, Ch. 4 News’ edited version of the segment didn’t add any information for viewers about Abu Sitta’s record of ideological extremism – which is especially problematic given that, during his brief exchange with Hilsum, he presented his concerns about the war in Lebanon as purely humanitarian.
None of this would come as a surprise to our readers, as we’ve documented the outlet’s egregiously one-sided, pro-Palestinian framing of the Oct. 7 War – representing an institutional bias that at times mirrors Guardian-style antizionist propaganda.
