Doctors and medical students must be free to criticise governments and states and speak out against humanitarian injustice without fear of censure, the BMA annual representative meeting has heard.

The BMA was also asked to issue guidance protecting members’ rights to freedom of speech and defend and support doctors and students who face disciplinary action when seeking to raise awareness of humanitarian issues, by ARM representatives gathering in Liverpool.

In a series of motions concerning the response of the medical profession to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, conference attendees roundly backed calls for the association to develop safeguards opposing antisemitism on medical school campuses, while recognising doctors and students’ right to legitimately advocate for Palestinian causes without being labelled antisemitic.

In a separate motion, the ARM further determined by a large majority that the act of voicing criticism of the actions of the state of Israel should not be regarded as inherently antisemitic.

Newcastle medical student Isla Casson spoke of her experiences as a Jewish person who has and continues to advocate for Palestinian causes.

Ms Casson said that despite her activism including considerable amounts of interfaith engagement, she feared that she and other students faced the very real and constant threat of being labelled as antisemitic.

As someone who had had to face antisemitism throughout her life, Ms Casson said she feared that the current climate risked undermining efforts to recognise and address genuine anti-Jewish sentiment.

She said: ‘As a practising Jew and a person whose faith and community has given me the values that lead to a firm belief in a free Palestine, too often we have seen genuine pro-Palestine organising and activism taken against the genocide in Gaza be smeared as antisemitic.

‘Antisemitism is very real and undeniable. It is something I and many of my loved ones have experienced, and the way we safeguard against it is a disservice to our Jewish colleagues everywhere.

‘This issue is not going away, and as a trade union and a representative organisation of doctors and medical students, it is important we differentiate between pro-Palestinianism and antisemitism.’

With calls to safeguard doctors and students’ right to speak out received broad approval from conference attendees, this support was tempered by expressions of caution over the need for such expressions to be within the law.

Cambridge GP Alice Hodkinson said: ‘We should be able to criticise governments, and that does not imply criticising the people or the race that live in that country or region. However, protests have to be lawful [and] where they are unlawful, they’re causing harm, harassment or disruption, then it is right to face legal and regulatory censor and disciplinary action’

Newcastle medical student Ahmad Hisham Wafai however wholeheartedly backed Ms Casson’s motion emphasising that its purpose was not simply that of expressing solidarity but ensuring that BMA members, including students, were able to speak freely without fear of ‘punitive measures that target them for their activism’.

Arguing that criticism of the Israeli state or government should not be automatically classed as antisemitic, east London GP Jackie Applebee told the ARM that recognising this distinction was critical if members of the medical profession were to speak freely.

She said: ‘Anyone who speaks up in support of the people of Gaza and who dares to criticise the actions of the Israeli state, risks being accused of antisemitism. Teachers, academics and health workers across the world have been disciplined and sacked. Students have been suspended for speaking out in support of Palestinians.

‘I abhor antisemitism and have always been an active anti-racist, [but] it is not antisemitic to criticise the State of Israel [and] it is wrong to conflate being Jewish with unconditional support for the Israeli state.’

Norwich paediatric trainee Ikechukwu Okongwu urged caution over Dr Applebee’s motion warning that while the wording of the motion stated that criticism of the Israeli government should not be regarded as antisemitism, it did so in the absence of ‘context’ and without setting ‘limits and safeguards’.

He said: ‘If this motion is passed as it is written, it sends a dangerous message that all criticism, no matter how extreme, is fair game.’

Retired GP Jonathan Fluxman however backed the motion and, as well as being Jewish himself, warned of the danger of conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, an act which he said often undermined efforts to tackle genuine antisemitism.

He said: ‘If we make an exception for Israel to say that Israel is the only country that if you criticise it, you are racist in some way, that is a nonsense.’