Background

Summary of Council decision:

22 issues were investigated, of which four were Upheld and 18 were Not upheld.

Ad description

Three ads for Medical Aid for Palestinians:

a. A regional press ad was headed "What if you needed a permit to get to hospital in Oxford … but were denied?" and further text stated "Last year in occupied Palestine 39,280* patients, companions and visitors did not make it to hospital because their permits were denied by the Israeli authorities. This is life under Israeli military control". Small print below stated "*Source: World Health Organisation (WHO) Special Report 2013. 'Right to Health: Barriers to health access in the occupied Palestinian territory'”. A picture was shown of a woman holding a young child in her arms with a soldier standing in front of a large concrete wall and pointing away from the woman. Another soldier was shown in the background. The other side of the street appeared to depict a street in Oxford, and the concrete wall included graffiti which stated "FREE OXFORD". Text below stated "Please, help MAP provide life-saving medical care for Palestinian families" and below that was a donation form.

b. A direct mailing, distributed to addresses in Oxford and Islington, was headed "Imagine if Oxford were under military occupation, with foreign soldiers controlling your freedom of movement. Imagine if you needed to get to hospital but were denied a permit". Further text stated "Dear Friend, This is what life is like for Palestinians living under occupation. It is their daily reality. I know, as I have just returned to the UK after living and working in Palestine for the UN for the past five years. The injustice of the situation continues to shock me. Palestinians have lived under Israeli occupation since 1967. Right now, there are more than 500 military checkpoints and road barriers throughout the West Bank. Every person, regardless of their age or condition, has to negotiate these obstacles. The delays and the disruption to their lives compromise their most basic human rights. Just to get to East Jerusalem, where the main specialist hospitals are, Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza need a permit from the Israeli authorities to cross the checkpoints. Last year, over 39,000 Palestinians had their permit request to get to hospital denied.* Ambulance in an emergency are not exempt. They are stopped and refused passage at checkpoints. Imagine if an ambulance carrying your dying child to hospital were forced to stop at a checkpoint and your child had to be carried across on a stretcher to another ambulance before you could continue. The consequences of a delay can be tragic. A donation of £20 could help Medical Aid for Palestinians bring lifesaving aid to where it is needed most. I urge you to please give today ..."; and

"The situation is made worse because many hospitals often don't have the drugs and supplies they need to provide adequate treatment to patients. Right now, there are over 100 essential medicines approaching zero stock levels in Gaza hospitals. MAP regularly delivers these essential, life-saving medicines and supplies ... You may not have heard of Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) but I can assure you that MAP is highly respected throughout Palestine. MAP is an independent, non-political, non-religious, humanitarian charity. We believe in the right to healthcare for everyone ... PS. Many essential medicines will run out in Gaza within the month unless we raise enough funds to send the supplies through. This is a very urgent matter, please donate by 30th September 2013". Small print at the foot of page one of the mailing stated "*Source: World Health Organisation (WHO) Special Report 2013, 'Right to health: Barriers to Health Access in the occupied Palestinian territory'".

The mailing also featured a photo of a man holding a child and talking to a solder in front of a concrete security barrier.

c. A leaflet distributed with ad (b) featured the same image as ad (a), with text stating "PERMITS BLOCKADES ARMED SOLDIERS SEPARATION WALLS CHECKPOINTS" also printed on the concrete wall depicted. Text underneath stated "What if these barriers stood between you and your hospital in Oxford? ...".

Text inside the leaflet stated "You wouldn't stand for barriers between you and the NHS. But this is what Palestinians face every single day", "Problem: separation wall and checkpoints block access to healthcare. The separation wall and checkpoints through the West Bank delay families' access to essential healthcare. Ill and vulnerable people, including children, suffer as a result. What we do: MAP's mobile clinic ...", "Problem: Blockade causes increase in burns injuries. The on-going Israeli blockade reduces fuel supplies in Gaza. This causes electricity cuts for up to 12 hours a day. During these cuts, Palestinian families often rely on gasoline lamps or generators to cook and light their homes. These are the cause of many severe burns injuries - which are particularly common amongst young children. If they are not treated quickly enough, burns can result in death. But blockades and checkpoints mean that rapid treatment is often denied. What we do: MAP provides medical aid ...", "Problem: Medicine at zero stock in Gaza. In Gaza, many essential medicines and medicinal disposables have reached zero stock levels. Without these drugs, doctors are unable to treat Palestinians with injuries swiftly, or give proper care to those suffering from on-going illness. What we do: We supply medicines ..." and "Thank you for helping us overcome the barriers".

Text on the back of the leaflet stated "Children die when barriers stand between them and medical treatment" and "When you need emergency medical treatment, every second counts. So when papers giving Palestinian patients access to specialist hospitals in east Jerusalem are denied or delayed, the consequences can be fatal. A two-day-old infant died after their mother - who was a high-risk pregnancy - applied for a permit for herself and a companion to Makassed Hospital in Jerusalem, but was denied. The woman delivered in a Gaza hospital but the infant died on the second day of life". Also, "Another day, another barrier. Another innocent Palestinian victim. A young child, aged three years, who had suffered from meningitis since the age of six months, was denied a permit to go to Tel Hashomer Hospital in Israel. This was after her father was denied a permit as her companion. The mother then applied as her companion but no response was received and the child died two weeks after the mother's application. (One week following her death, the family was informed that permits for the child and the mother had been approved.) Both these horrific stories are from ’Right to health: Barriers to health access in the occupied territory, 2011 and 2012’, published by the World Health Organisation".

Issue

UK Lawyers for Israel and Baroness Deech challenged whether:

1. the claim "Right now, there are more than 500 military checkpoints and road barriers throughout the West Bank" in ad (b) was misleading, because they did not believe it was based on up-to-date figures;

2. the reference to barriers and checkpoints in ads (a), (b) and (c) were misleading, because they did not state that they existed as protection against the threat of terrorist attacks;

3. the claim "Palestinians have lived under Israeli occupation since 1967" in ad (b) was misleading, because they believed the term "occupation" as it would be understood by the average person did not reflect the reality of daily life for most Palestinians and because they believed the claim misleadingly implied there had been no change in the situation since 1967;

4. the images of concrete security walls in ads (a), (b) and (c) were misleading, because the majority of the length of the barrier was a wire mesh fence rather than a concrete wall;

5. the two case studies of a baby and young child in ad (c) were misleading, because they believed the ad implied that they were from the West Bank whereas they understood they were from Gaza;

6. the case study of a baby in ad (c) was misleading, because they believed it implied that the baby died because it was delivered in a Gazan hospital rather than a Palestinian hospital in East Jerusalem and they did not believe it could be substantiated that the outcome would have been different in the other hospital;

7. the case study of a young child in ad (c) was misleading, because they believed it implied that the child died because they were denied a permit to an Israeli hospital and they did not believe it could be substantiated that the outcome would have been different in the Israeli hospital;

8. the analogies in ads (a), (b) and (c) between Palestinians being denied access to Israeli hospitals and UK citizens being denied access to the NHS were misleading, because Palestinians did not hold the same entitlement to Israeli healthcare as UK citizens did to the NHS;

9. the analogies in ads (a), (b) and (c) between Palestinians' access to healthcare and UK citizens' access to healthcare in Oxford or Islington were misleading, because Oxford and Islington were not under sustained threat of terrorist attack and therefore did not require security checkpoints;

10. the claim "Last year, over 39,000 Palestinians had their permit request to get to hospital denied" in ad (b) was misleading, because they believed it implied that all of those individuals were patients, whereas the WHO figures on which the claim was based did not distinguish between patients, companions and family members;

11. the claim "Last year, over 39,000 Palestinians had their permit request to get to hospital denied" in ad (b) was misleading, because they understood the WHO figures were disputed by Israel;

12. the claim "Last year, over 39,000 Palestinians had their permit request to get to hospital denied" in ad (b) was misleading, because it emphasised those who were denied permits and did not refer to the number of Palestinians who were granted permits;

13. the claim "Problem: Blockade causes increase in burns injuries. The on-going Israeli blockade reduces fuel supplies in Gaza" in ad (c) was misleading, because they understood there was no restriction on fuel being exported from Israel to Gaza and that shortages existed for other reasons;

14. the references to the blockade in ad (c) were misleading because they implied that donations would affect the existence of the blockade, when that was not the case;

15. the claim "Problem: Medicine at zero stock in Gaza. In Gaza, many essential medicines and medicinal disposables have reached zero stock levels" in ad (c) was misleading, because they believed it exaggerated the scale of the problem and implied the shortage was caused by Israel when that was not the case;

16. the reference to ambulances being "stopped and refused passage at checkpoints" in ad (b) was misleading, because it did not state the security reasons for stopping them;

17. the claim "MAP is ... non-political" in ad (b) was misleading, because they understood they carried out advocacy and had previously engaged in other activities which they believed to be political; and

18. the overall portrayal of the healthcare situation of Palestinians' in ads (a), (b) and (c) was misleading, because they said that the availability and standard of Israeli healthcare provided to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza strip since 1967 had led to improvements in healthcare and life expectancy and that Israel provided medical training and other medical assistance to Palestinians.

They also objected that:

19. the overall depiction of the Israeli state in ads (a), (b) and (c) was socially irresponsible, because they believed they could encourage anti-Semitism and reprisals against British Jews;

20. the overall depiction of the Israeli state in ads (a), (b) and (c) was offensive to British Jews, particularly due to the publication of the press ad (a) on Jewish New Year;

21. the fabricated image of a parent and their child being denied access at a checkpoint in ads (a) and (c) was gratuitously shocking, and offensively reminiscent of images of fascism; and

22. the ads denigrated the state of Israel as a tourist destination, and could discourage tourists from visiting Israel.

Response

Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) said the ads were part of a campaign to recruit donors to support their humanitarian work in the occupied Palestinian territories and Lebanon. They said that ads (b) and (c) were part of the same pack sent out to individuals and would therefore be read together. They said an earlier version of ad (a), including the heading and main image, had been sent in advance to CAP Copy Advice who had advised that it was unlikely to breach the Code. They said they published a large volume of publicity material each year and had been using similar advertising and information for decades.

1. MAP said the claim referred to both checkpoints and road barriers. They said that as well as checkpoints, Israel had blocked the access roads to some of the main traffic arteries in the West Bank by using physical obstructions, such as dirt embankments, concrete blocks, iron gates or trenches. They based the claim on figures from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in a report of December 2012 on 'The Humanitarian Impact of Israeli Settlement Policies', a copy of which was provided. The report stated that "... approximately 540 internal checkpoints, roadblocks and other physical obstacles impede Palestinian movement within the West Bank". They said that a 2012 report by B'Tselem (The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories) referred to by the complainants, which they provided, did state that several restrictions on Palestinians' movement within the West Bank had been removed and that 16 permanently manned checkpoints existed in the West Bank, as well as 16 in Hebron. However, MAP said it also stated that the infrastructure of many other checkpoints had been left in place to allow for their reactivation at short notice, that hundreds of physical objects were still in place and that the military periodically erected 'flying checkpoints' at locations without checkpoint infrastructure. The report stated that this made it impossible for Palestinians wishing to travel between towns and villages to predict whether they would come across a checkpoint and how long it would take. It also stated that Israel denied all Palestinians, except those with special permits, access to specific areas of the West Bank such as East Jerusalem and the land west of the Separation Barrier. They also provided an OCHA report fact sheet from July 2012 on 'The Humanitarian Impact of the Barrier'.

2. MAP said the purpose of the ads was to highlight the humanitarian impact of the barrier and checkpoints on ordinary Palestinian citizens accessing healthcare. They said Israel's security rationale for the separation barrier had been widely reported in Britain and was generally understood by the public. They also said that the security rationale for the construction of the barrier and other checkpoints and obstacles had been much contested, and the legality of the barrier challenged by the International Court of Justice. They therefore did not believe it was necessary, feasible or appropriate to include this information in the ads. MAP provided further information and documents regarding: the history of the separation barrier; its route; its disputed role in the reduction of Palestinian attacks on Israeli's; and the legal situation regarding the barrier.

3. MAP said the purpose of the statement was to emphasise the historical fact that Palestinians had been living under occupation for more than 45 years. They said that while there had been changes in aspects of the occupation since 1967, it was a fact that there was a pervasive military presence throughout the West Bank, and was also a daily reality in Gaza, not least because of the blockade. They said that Israel disputed its description as an occupying power, but that the United Nations (UN) and human rights organisations defined the area as occupied, even after Israel's withdrawal of settlements and military installations from Gaza in 2005. They referred to UN Security Council Resolution 1860 in 2009 which included a statement that "the Gaza strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967". MAP said that the occupation remained the most significant barrier to development in all areas of Palestinian society. They provided an OCHA report 'Fragmented Lives - Humanitarian Overview 2012' and an OCHA document that referred to the restrictions on free movement caused by checkpoints, barriers and other obstacles including bureaucratic constraints.

4. MAP said the ads depicted the separation barrier in an urban environment and that the use of wire construction was predominantly used in rural settings. In urban settings a concrete wall 8 m high was the dominant structure and reflected the daily reality of the separation barrier for the majority of Palestinians. They said the Israeli government had stated that concrete construction was mainly used "in densely populated urban areas such as Jerusalem". They provided a web page from an Israeli government website that gave information about the "Operational concept" of the barrier, including its construction, which stated that once complete approximately 6% of the barrier (30 km) would be concrete.

5. MAP said the ad referred to the impact of the occupation on Palestinian access to healthcare, and on the functioning of its health system, across the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem. Both case studies related to patients from Gaza and they did not believe the ad implied they were from the West Bank. They said that patients from both Gaza and the West Bank faced restrictions by Israel on access to the six specialised Palestinian hospitals in East Jerusalem and to hospitals in Israel.

6. & 7. MAP said the ad aimed to highlight the risks when access to healthcare was denied or delayed. They said that in both cases highlighted in the ad, the patients had been referred to other specialised hospitals outside Gaza: one in Israel and the other a Palestinian hospital in occupied East Jerusalem. They said that both patients were unable to exit Gaza because their companions' permits were denied or delayed by the Israeli authorities. They said that ad (c) referred to the WHO report ”Right to health: Barriers to health access in the Palestinian territory, 2011 and 2012” which gave details of both cases. They provided a copy of the report. They said that both cases were emergency referrals needing specialised care and, while it could not be proved that the patients would have survived, that it was reasonable to assume that their chances of survival would have been improved had they reached the hospital to which they were referred. They said that patients would not have been referred if they had not required specialised care, and that as with any such referral chances of survival would improve with care provided by appropriate specialists with the necessary equipment. They said this was particularly the case in Gaza because of the poor state of the health sector there in comparison to hospitals located in Israel. They said that neither the report nor the ad claimed that the patients died because they were unable to reach the specialised hospital. They said they would not be able to prove that the chances of survival would have been much better without carrying out further investigations, such as interviewing medical consultants, and even then the information might not be conclusive. However, they did not consider that further enquiries of that nature would be justified, because there was every reason to assume the patients’ survival chances would have been better if they had been able to access the specialised care they required.

8. MAP said that the main referral centres for the West Bank and Gaza were the six Palestinian specialised hospitals located in East Jerusalem. They said that Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza had the right to attend those hospitals, just as UK citizens had a right to attend NHS hospitals. They said that Palestinians also had the right to attend other hospitals, in Israel and elsewhere, once the hospital concerned had agreed to accept them. They said that, as the occupying power, according to international laws of war, Israel remained responsible for the health and well being of the Palestinian population living in the occupied territories. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.

9. MAP said the ads invited readers to consider a simple and clearly explained scenario: to imagine if they faced a range of barriers in accessing their local UK hospital. Ad (b) specifically invited readers to "imagine if Oxford (or Islington) were under military occupation with foreign solders controlling your freedom of movement". They said the ads drew a comparison between this imagined scenario and that faced by Palestinians when they required access to specialised health services in East Jerusalem. The aim of the comparison was to bring home to readers what it was like to live under sustained military occupation.

10. MAP said the ad included an image of a man holding a child and the caption below stated "Imagine if you needed to get to hospital but were denied a permit". They therefore believed the image and caption combined made clear that a permit would be required for the companion as well as the patient. They said ad (b) was always accompanied by ad (c) and that the same rationale applied to the image of a woman carrying a child accompanied by the text "What if these barriers stood between you and your hospital ...". They said the case studies in ad (c) also specifically stated that the permit refused were for the companions of the patients. They therefore believed that the context, images and language used in accompanying ads (b) and (c) made clear that permits were required for both patients and companions, and that the 39 000 figure related to both.

11. MAP said they were entitled to rely on the data published by WHO, an authoritative and objective UN organisation, regarding the 39 000 figure. They said the WHO report, which they provided, explained the differences between their data and that provided by the Israeli authorities. They said the report was referenced in all the ads.

12. MAP said the purpose of the appeal was to highlight the number of permits to get to hospitals in East Jerusalem and Israel that were denied. They believed that even one denial was a matter of concern and would not be acceptable in the UK. They said that 17% of permit applications were denied by the Israeli authorities and they believed that was a cause for concern by any standards.

13. MAP said there had been endemic shortages of fuel in Gaza since 2007/08 as a result both directly and indirectly of the blockade. They said that Israel had restricted the amount of fuel provided to Gaza at various times since the blockade of Gaza was imposed in 2007. For example, in January 2008 OCHA reported that "Israel is allowing a restricted amount of fuel to enter Gaza but only enough to ensure that 75 per cent of Gaza's electricity needs are met which does not allow for the proper function of public services". They provided a copy of that report: 'Gaza Closure: Situation Report'. In January 2009, Gisha, the Israeli Legal Centre for freedom of movement, and nine other Israeli human rights organisations appealed to the Israeli government to "stop draining Gaza of fuel and electricity". They provided a copy of their press release. They said that Israel's High Court of Justice had denied petitions by human rights organisations against the restrictions on fuel supply to Gaza, after the Israeli government committed to allowing industrial diesel imports of 2.2 million litres per week, which was only two-thirds of the amount needed for the power plant to operate at its planned capacity. They said that the Nahal Oz crossing, which was solely dedicated to the importation of fuel and gas, had been closed since January 2010, and that the move to the Kerem Shalom crossing led to restrictions in the supply of fuel and cooking gas. They said that only one out of four crossings for the transport of goods was open. They provided an article from the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) from June 2013 by the Chairman of the Petroleum and Gas Owners Association of the Gaza Strip. MAP said that in June 2010 the government of Israel announced a set of measures to ease the blockade of Gaza, but that this did not include the easing of fuel restrictions. They referred to the OCHA ”Fragmented Lives” report which stated "The lack of financial resources to ensure fuel supplies to both the power plant and the backup generators continues to be a problem". They also provided a December 2011 factsheet by Oxfam on the Gaza blockade, which stated that "... although fuel was not included in any of the easing arrangements, the ban on fuel imports is an essential component of the blockade". They said that the blockade had also had a devastating impact on Gaza's economy causing a severe reduction in GDP, very high levels of unemployment, poverty and aid dependency and limitation on the revenue of the power plants. This impacted on the ability of institutions (including the power plant) and individuals to pay for fuel, which had also been a major cause of shortages.

14. MAP said that ad (c) made reference to several aspects of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and in particular the physical barriers to health. The ad detailed several specific health issues and how MAP delivered medical aid in each case, asking readers to make a donation to help deliver this aid. They said the ad did not state or imply that making a donation would affect the existence of the blockade.

15. MAP said there had been serious shortages of drugs and disposables in Gaza for several years. They said the ad did not state that the shortage of medicines was caused by Israel. However, there had been frequent difficulties and delays in delivering drugs to Gaza because of Israeli controls and restrictions and due to the periodic closure of crossings. More recently, the financial crisis of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah had resulted in shortages of drugs and disposables in both the West Bank and Gaza. They said that in June 2012, WHO reported that Gaza was experiencing the highest level of drug shortage in five years. They provided a copy of the report. They said that a further update from WHO in February 2013, which they provided, stated that "... the Palestinian Authority [PA] as a whole has been facing acute financial stress since 2011, due to reduced external support from the donor community and the withholding of tax revenues collected by Israel to cover the PA's debt to Israeli bodies". MAP said that the occupation impeded economic development on which the PA depended, as numerous reports, including those of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, had testified. They referred to a March 2013 World Bank report on “Fiscal Challenges and Long Term Economic Costs”, which they provided.

MAP said that the definition of “zero stock” used by the Ministry of Health in Palestine, and by WHO and others, was ‘less than one month’s supply at the Central Drug Store’. They had therefore used that definition in their ad because that was how drug shortages were reported. They did not believe the claim exaggerated the scale of the problem, and said there was no doubt about the scale and seriousness of the shortages.

16. MAP said Israel did not give reasons in individual cases for stopping ambulances at checkpoints. They said security was cited as the general justification, but an explanation or evidence was not provided. They believed that security had become a blanket justification for numerous restrictions and constraints on Palestinians and they saw no reason to follow that practise by repeating that justification in the ad. They said the WHO “Right to health” report referred to the problem of "arbitrary denial at checkpoints" and that ambulances enjoyed special protection under international humanitarian law. They said that Palestinian ambulances were still heavily restricted from entering East Jerusalem and that figures in the WHO report stated that in 2011, five per cent of ambulances were allowed access to East Jerusalem, and that the figure for 2012 was nine per cent. They said that most patients had to be shuttled on gurneys between ambulances in a 'back-to-back' procedure, which had been criticised by emergency services personnel.

17. MAP said they were a charity registered with the Charity Commission, which worked for the health and dignity of Palestinians living under occupation and as refugees. They said their work included speaking out about the conditions that Palestinians faced, to raise awareness and challenge violations of the right to health in order to address the root causes. They said that like many charities they arranged public events and fringe events at party conferences. They believed this side to their work was in keeping with their mandate and consistent with the Charity Commission guidelines on charitable campaigning, which they provided. They said they were transparent about their campaigning activities and provided their annual report as an example. MAP said that they were, however, non-political because they were not affiliated to any political party and their campaigning was undertaken in the context of supporting the delivery of their charitable purposes.

18. MAP said that since the Oslo accord was signed in 1995, the Palestinian Authority has been responsible for the provision of healthcare in the occupied Palestinian territories. Since then, there had been improvements in the health system and in life expectancy, but they believed that standards were far below what they should and could be, were it not for the occupation. They referred to an article in the Lancet, which they provided, on ”Health in the Occupied Palestinian Territory 2009” which stated "Hope for improving health and quality of life of Palestinians will exist only once people recognise that the structural and political conditions which they endure in the occupied Palestinian territory are the key determinants of population health". They said that while Israel was responsible under international law for the health and wellbeing of the civilian population in territory that it occupies, in practice Israel provided minimal training or other medical support to the Palestinian health system. They said that a number of tertiary referrals were made by the Palestinian Authority to Israeli hospitals, but these were a small proportion of the total and the costs were fully paid by the Palestinian Authority. For example, the WHO ”Right to health” report stated that in 2012, 9.1% of patients were referred to hospitals in Israel, while 82.4% of Palestinian patients were referred to hospitals within the occupied Palestinian territories.

19. MAP said the ads made no reference to Jews or to any other religious group. They said the ads depicted the effects of Israel's policies and occupation on Palestinians. They therefore did not believe the ads could be construed as anti-Semitic or likely to encourage attacks against British Jews. They said they had sought advice from CAP on the main visuals and message before publication and no objections had been raised.

20. MAP said the purpose of the appeal was to draw attention to the impact of Israel’s policies and to solicit donations. They said the statements in the ads were factual, not offensive, and in no way critical of British Jews. They said they had initially planned to run the campaign earlier in the year on 1 June. However, after the murder of Lee Rigby on 22 May, they had considered it inappropriate to publish an ad showing a soldier confronting a member of the public and cancelled all the ads. They said they were unaware that the revised publication date coincided with the Jewish New Year, and regretted that was the case, but nonetheless the ads were not an attack on Jews.

21. MAP said that the image used in ads (a) and (c) was carefully constructed to replicate the real image which also appeared in ad (c). They said the image was intended to capture the attention of readers but was not offensive, and nor was it intended to be. They believed the image was a fair portrayal of the reality in Palestine. They said the image was included in the ad for which they sought advice from CAP and no objections had been raised.

22. MAP said the ads did not refer to, or denigrate, any product, marketer or trade mark. They did not refer to tourism nor to Israel as a tourist destination. They also believed that although they were critical of the occupation policies of the Israeli government, they did not denigrate Israel.

Assessment

THIS RULING REPLACES THAT PUBLISHED ON 3 SEPTEMBER 2014. THE VERDICT ON POINTS 6, 7 AND 15 HAVE BEEN CHANGED, MAKING THEM UPHELD.

1. Not upheld

Ad (b) included the claim "Right now, there are more than 500 military checkpoints and road barriers throughout the West Bank". The complainants believed it was not based on up-to-date figures and that it was contradicted by a statement by B'Tselem from December 2012. The B'Tselem statement said that during the second intifada the Israeli military had established dozens of checkpoints in the West Bank and placed hundreds of physical obstacles (such as mounds of earth, cement blocks and ditches) to the movement of Palestinians. They said that such restrictions had been scaled back, but that infrastructure for the checkpoints had been left in place. They further stated that 16 permanently manned checkpoints remained throughout the West Bank, as well as 16 in the centre of Hebron, a Palestinian city in the West Bank. They also stated that hundreds of physical obstacles were still standing. The OCHA report also dated from December 2012 and stated that approximately 540 internal checkpoints, roadblocks and other physical obstacles impeded Palestinian movement within the West Bank. The OCHA report did not include a breakdown of which of those 540 were checkpoints, roadblocks or other physical obstacles. The claim in the ad referred to "military checkpoints and road barriers" and we did not consider it implied the majority of those would be checkpoints. The B'Tselem referred to "hundreds" of physical obstacles as well as 32 permanent checkpoints and therefore did not contradict the OCHA report, which referred to 540 "internal checkpoints, roadblocks and other physical obstacles". We considered that documentary evidence from December 2012 was sufficiently up-to-date to support the claim in the ad, which had appeared in September 2013. We therefore concluded the claim "Right now, there are more than 500 military checkpoints and road barriers throughout the West Bank" had been substantiated and was not misleading.

On this point we investigated ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  (Misleading advertising) and  3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.  (Substantiation) did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

Ads (a), (b) and (c) did not include information regarding the intended purpose of the barriers and checkpoints they referred to. However, we did not consider that, in the context of ads appealing for charitable donations towards medical care for Palestinians, the purpose of the barriers and checkpoints was material information that needed to be included. We also considered that the average reader was likely to have some awareness of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the use of barriers and checkpoints by Israel in occupied Palestinian territory, and that Israel had justified such measures by reference to the threat of terrorist attacks. We therefore concluded the ads were not misleading.

On this point we investigated ads (a), (b) and (c) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.3 3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
 (Misleading advertising) and  3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  (Qualification) but did not find them in breach.

3. Not upheld

Ad (b) stated "Palestinians have lived under Israeli occupation since 1967" and followed this with references to checkpoints and barriers in the West Bank. The ad went on to refer to both the West Bank and Gaza and the difficulty Palestinians faced in accessing medical care in East Jerusalem. We understood that the status of the territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip was the subject of much dispute, and considered that the average reader was likely to be aware that was the case. We understood that the West Bank was generally regarded under international law as occupied territory and that, although some areas were under the administration of the Palestinian Authority, the claim did not give a misleading impression of the reality of daily life for most Palestinians living in the West Bank. We also understood that the Gaza Strip was generally regarded under international law as occupied territory and that the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" was used, including by OCHA, to refer to Palestinian territories including the West Bank and Gaza. Although we acknowledged Gaza was administered by a Palestinian government and that Israel had disengaged from Gaza in 2005, Israel controlled the Gaza Strip's airspace and territorial waters, including the movement of people and goods. We also noted the ad specifically referred to the requirement for Palestinian's living in Gaza to apply for a permit to access hospitals in East Jerusalem. We therefore did not consider the claim "Palestinians have lived under Israeli occupation since 1967" gave a misleading impression of the reality of daily life for most Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. Apart from the reference to "1967" in the claim, the ad made no other references to the historical status of the West Bank or Gaza Strip, and focused on the current situation regarding medical care. We did not consider the claim implied there had been no changes in the situation since 1967. We therefore concluded the claim was not misleading.

On this point we investigated ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.3 3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
 (Misleading advertising) and  3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  (Qualification) but did not find it in breach.

4. Not upheld

The image of a concrete security wall in ad (a) and on the front of ad (c) was a mocked-up image of a security wall in Oxford, designed to mimic the concrete barrier constructed by Israel in the West Bank. Ads (b) and (c) also featured photos of the actual concrete barrier. Whilst we acknowledged that the majority of the barrier was not concrete, we did not consider the ads implied that all of the barrier would be concrete. We also understood that concrete barriers were generally used in more populated areas and that the effect of the barrier in terms of restricting movement was the same, regardless of whether it was concrete or mesh fence. We therefore concluded that the images of concrete security walls were not misleading.

On this point we investigated ads (a), (b) and (c) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.3 3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
 (Misleading advertising) and  3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  (Qualification) but did not find them in breach.

5. Not upheld

Ad (c) was accompanied by ad (b) and we therefore considered they were likely to be read together. Both ads made reference to the situation regarding medical care in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Although there was a focus on the impact of the security barrier, ad (c) also referred to a number of problems that were specific to Gaza, such as "Blockade causes burns injuries" and "Medicine at zero stock in Gaza". We also considered that the ads made clear that the issues of accessing medical care at hospitals in East Jerusalem applied to Palestinian residents of both the West Bank and Gaza Strip. We therefore did not consider ad (c) implied that the patients in the case studies were from the West Bank. One case study also specifically stated that "The woman delivered in a Gaza hospital". We therefore concluded the ad was not misleading.

On this point we investigated ad (c) under  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.3 3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
 (Misleading advertising) and  3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  (Qualification) but did not find it in breach.

6. & 7. Upheld

We considered that the claims which accompanied the two case studies in ad (c), "Children die when barriers stand between them and medical treatment", "So when papers giving Palestinian patients access to specialist hospitals in East Jerusalem are denied or delayed, the consequences can be fatal" and "Another innocent Palestinian victim", implied that on some occasions patients had died following denials or delays of permits by Israeli authorities. We also considered the claims, when presented alongside the two case studies, implied that there was a likelihood the outcomes in those case studies would have been different if the permits had been granted promptly. We therefore considered whether the evidence provided by MAP substantiated that there was a likelihood that the outcomes would have been different if the permits had been grated promptly, and in particular whether it supported a likelihood that the individuals would not have died. We acknowledged that the case studies were based on reports featured in a WHO report, and that this was clearly stated in the ad. We also acknowledged that the patients would have been be referred to other hospitals based on medical necessity, and therefore the fact that they had been unable to promptly access the medical care deemed necessary could have influenced the outcome. However, we did not consider that the information given in the report was sufficient to substantiate a likelihood that the individuals would not have died if the permits had been granted promptly. We therefore concluded that, in the context of the surrounding claims in the ad, the references to the case studies were misleading.

On these points ad (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.3 3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
 (Misleading advertising) and  3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.  (Substantiation).

8. Not upheld

Ads (a), (b) and (c) invited readers to imagine what it would be like to need a permit to get to hospital and to have to cross a barrier to do so. Ad (c) stated "You wouldn't stand for barriers between you and the NHS. But this is what Palestinians face every single day". We considered readers would understand the claims to be an analogy, but not an exact comparison, and that they would understand from the claims that when referred to hospitals outside of the occupied Palestinian territories, it was necessary for patients and companions to obtain permits, which were not always granted.

Ads (b) and (c) specifically referred to specialist hospitals in East Jerusalem. We understood that there were six Palestinian-run specialist hospitals in East Jerusalem and that, to access them, Palestinians living in the occupied territories were required to apply to the Israeli authorities for a permit. We understood they were the main referral centres serving the West Bank and Gaza populations and that they were an important part of the Palestinian healthcare system. We understood that Palestinians were also referred to Israeli hospitals, and that any such treatment was either paid for by the Palestinian Ministry of Health or privately. The analogies implied that it was necessary to obtain permits and cross barriers when referred to certain hospitals and because that was the case we concluded the ads were not misleading.

On this point we investigated ads (a), (b) and (c) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.3 3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
 (Misleading advertising) and  3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  (Qualification) but did not find them in breach.

9. Not upheld

Ads (a), (b) and (c) drew analogies between Palestinians' access to healthcare and UK citizens' access to healthcare in Oxford or Islington. We acknowledged that there were differences in context, and that Israel had justified the West Bank barrier by reference to security concerns. However, we considered that the average reader was likely to be aware of the different contexts, and concluded that the analogy was not misleading.

On this point we investigated ads (a), (b) and (c) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.3 3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
 (Misleading advertising) and  3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  (Qualification) but did not find them in breach.

10. Upheld

We considered that, in the absence of qualification, the average reader would understand from the claim "Last year, over 39,000 Palestinians had their permit request to get to hospital denied" in ad (b) that 39 000 patients had had their permit request to get to hospital denied. We noted that ad (a) referred to "patients, companions and visitors" and considered that ad (b) should also have made clear that the figure included companions and family members. Because it did not, we concluded the claim was misleading.

On this point ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.3 3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
 (Misleading advertising) and  3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  (Qualification).

11. Not upheld

The 2013 WHO report ”Right to Health: Barriers to health access in the occupied Palestinian territory” referenced in the ad, stated that in 2012, of the 222,188 applications for health access permits submitted by West Bank residents, 39,196 were denied; 237 patients from Gaza also had their permit request denied. The report noted that these figures related to applications submitted though the Palestinian General Authority for Civil Affairs (GACA) only, and that an unknown number of West Bank residents submitted applications to the Israeli Civil Administration authorities. The report acknowledged that there was some discrepancy between the data on West Bank permits provided by the Palestinian GACA and the Israeli Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), but that COGAT did not provide any breakdown of their data (including the number of permits denied) and so they were unable to use it for analysis. We considered that WHO were an authoritative and objective organisation, and that it was reasonable for MAP to rely on their data when making the claim. We considered the WHO report substantiated the claim "Last year, over 39,000 Palestinians had their permit request to get to hospital denied" and therefore concluded that it was not misleading.

On this point we investigated ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  (Misleading advertising) and  3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.  (Substantiation) but did not find it in breach.

12. Not upheld

Ad (b) included the claim "Last year, over 39,000 Palestinians had their permit request to get to hospital denied" and did not make reference to what percentage or number of permits were granted. We therefore did not consider the ad implied that all or most permit requests were denied. We also did not consider that in the context of the ad, the number of permits granted was material information that needed to be included and therefore concluded the claim was not misleading.

On this point we investigated ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.3 3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
 (Misleading advertising) and  3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  (Qualification) but did not find it in breach.

13. Not upheld

We considered readers would understand from the claim "Problem: Blockade causes increase in burns injuries. The on-going Israeli blockade reduces fuel supplies in Gaza" that the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip reduced fuel supplies there. However, we did not consider it implied that there were no other factors that contributed to the shortage of fuel. The evidence provided by MAP demonstrated that the Israeli blockade had contributed to fuel shortages in Gaza both directly, via restrictions on the amount of fuel that could be imported to Gaza, and indirectly, by various other restrictions such as on the movement of goods that impacted on the financial resources of individuals and organisations, such as hospitals, that meant that fuel was prohibitively expensive. Although we acknowledged that the impact of the blockade was likely to vary over time and that other factors also contributed to shortages, we understood that at the time the ad appeared the blockade was in place, and concluded that the claim had therefore been substantiated.

On this point we investigated ad (c) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.3 3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
 (Misleading advertising),  3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.  (Substantiation) and  3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  (Qualification) but did not find it in breach.

14. Not upheld

Ad (c) made reference to the blockade of Gaza and also stated "Thank you for helping us overcome the barriers". However, we did not consider the ad implied that donations to MAP would affect the existence of the blockade, and we therefore concluded that the references to the blockade were not misleading.

On this point we investigated ad (c) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.3 3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
 (Misleading advertising) and  3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  (Qualification) but did not find it in breach.

15. Upheld

We considered that, in the context of ad (c), readers would understand from the claim "Problem: Medicine at zero stock in Gaza. In Gaza, many essential medicines and medicinal disposables have reached zero stock levels" that the shortages were due at least in part to the blockade or other actions of the Israeli government. However, we did not consider the claim implied that there were no other factors which contributed to the shortages. The OCHA “Fragmented Lives” report stated that, along with other factors, the ongoing restrictions on the movement of people and supplies from and to the Gaza Strip contributed to those shortages. The World Bank report on ”Fiscal Challenges and Long Term Economic Costs” also stated that Israeli restrictions had increasingly affected the Palestinian Authority's provision of basic services. We therefore considered it was not misleading to imply that Israeli actions had contributed to the shortages.

The same report stated that in 2012, zero stock levels ranged from 29% to 43% for drugs and 26% to 65% for disposables. However, we understood that “zero stock” was defined as stocks depleted to less than one month’s supply at the Central Drug’s Store (CDS) in Gaza. Whilst we acknowledged that MAP had used that definition because that was the definition used by various bodies working in the region, we considered that readers of the ad would not have been aware of that definition and would have interpreted “zero stock” to literally mean that no stock remained. We also noted that ad (b) referred to such shortages but used more measured language, specifically “approaching zero stock levels”, which we considered more accurately communicated the meaning of the claim and evidence they held to support it. Because the evidence did not substantiate that no stock remained for many essential medicines and medical disposables we concluded that the claim “zero stock” was misleading.

On this point ad (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.3 3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
 (Misleading advertising),  3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.  (Substantiation) and  3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  (Qualification).

16. Not upheld

Ad (b) referred to ambulances being "stopped and refused passage at checkpoints" and did not include information regarding the purpose of those actions. However, we did not consider that in the context of the ad the purposes of stopping or refusing passage of ambulances was material information that needed to be included. We therefore concluded the claim was not misleading.

On this point we investigated ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.3 3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
 (Misleading advertising) and  3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  (Qualification) but did not find it in breach.

17. Not upheld

We considered that readers would understand from the claim "MAP is ... non-political" in ad (b), that MAP was not allied with any particular political party in any country and that its primary aims were not political in nature. We understood that MAP engaged in campaigning where it supported the delivery of their charitable purpose, and that such campaigning was permitted by Charity Commission guidelines. We considered that readers were likely to be aware that charities sometimes participated in campaigning activities, and that such activities did not mean the organisation itself was political in nature. We therefore concluded the claim "MAP is ... non-political" was not misleading.

On this point we investigated ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.3 3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
 (Misleading advertising) and  3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  (Qualification) but did not find it in breach.

18. Not upheld

We considered that ads (a), (b) and (c) focused on the current healthcare situation in the occupied Palestinian territories. We did not consider the ads implied there had, or had not been, any improvement in the healthcare situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip since 1967. The ads also did not include any information regarding whether Israel had, or had not, provided medical training and other medical assistance to Palestinians. In the context of the ad, we did not consider that was material information that needed to be included. We therefore concluded the overall portrayal of the healthcare situation of Palestinians' was not misleading.

On this point we investigated ads (a), (b) and (c) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.3 3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
 (Misleading advertising) and  3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  (Qualification) but did not find them in breach.

19. Not upheld

The ads made reference to actions of the Israeli state that impacted on the healthcare situation of Palestinians. However, they did not make any references to Jews and did not contain any anti-Semitic statements or calls to action other than asking for donations. We did not consider that the ads were likely to encourage anti-Semitism and attacks against British Jews and therefore concluded they were not socially irresponsible.

On this point we investigated ads (a), (b) and (c) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  1.3 1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society.  (Social responsibility) but did not find them in breach.

20. Not upheld

The ads made reference to actions of the Israeli state which impacted on the healthcare situation of Palestinians. Although ad (a) was published on Jewish New Year, which MAP said they regretted, none of the ads made reference to Jews or contained any anti-Semitic statements or calls to action other than asking for donations. We therefore did not consider the depiction of the Israeli state was likely to cause serious or widespread offence to British Jews.

On this point we investigated ads (a), (b) and (c) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule  4.1 4.1 Marketing communications must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age. Compliance will be judged on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards.
Marketing communications may be distasteful without necessarily breaching this rule. Marketers are urged to consider public sensitivities before using potentially offensive material.
The fact that a product is offensive to some people is not grounds for finding a marketing communication in breach of the Code.
 (Harm and offence) but did not find it in breach.

21. Not upheld

We considered that the image used in ads (a) and (c) was likely to capture the attention of readers. However, we did not consider the image was unduly shocking or that it was likely to cause fear, distress or offence. We also noted that it was based on a real-life image, which was shown in ad (b), and did not consider it was offensively reminiscent of images of fascism. We therefore concluded it did not breach the Code.

On this point we investigated ads (a) and (c) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  4.1 4.1 Marketing communications must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age. Compliance will be judged on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards.
Marketing communications may be distasteful without necessarily breaching this rule. Marketers are urged to consider public sensitivities before using potentially offensive material.
The fact that a product is offensive to some people is not grounds for finding a marketing communication in breach of the Code.
 and 4. (Harm and offence) but did not find them in breach.

22. Not upheld

The ads did not make any reference to Israel as a tourist destination or state or imply that tourists should not visit Israel. We therefore concluded the ads did not denigrate Israel as a tourist destination or discourage tourists from visiting it.

On this point we investigated ads (a), (b) and (c) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.42 3.42 Marketing communications must not discredit or denigrate another product, marketer, trade mark, trade name or other distinguishing mark.  (Imitation and denigration) but did not find them in breach.

Action

Ads (b) and (c) must not appear again in their current form. We told MAP to ensure they did not imply that permit request rejection figures related only to patients if the figure also included companions and family members. We also told them to ensure that they held evidence to support claims as they would be understood by readers.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

1.3     3.1     3.3     3.42     3.7     3.9     4.1     4.2    


More on