IPSO finds Telegraph linked children's kite-making to Hamas paragliders without basis

The Independent Press Standards Organisation has ruled that The Daily Telegraph published a misleading and serious allegation when it suggested that kite-making at a children's camp was a reference to the paragliders used by Hamas in its attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023.

The article, headlined "'Pro-Iran' children's camp axed amid extremism fears", reported on the cancellation of a summer camp linked to the Ahlulbayt Islamic Mission. The ruling was published on 14 May 2026.

What IPSO found

The article described the children's kite-making as "an apparent reference" to the Hamas paragliders. IPSO found that this was the writer's own inference, that the article gave no basis for it, and that it did not include the organisation's denial that the activity had anything to do with Hamas or the attacks. The Committee concluded that the claim was a serious allegation, that it was misleading, and that it had not been corrected. It found breaches of Clause 1 (i) and Clause 1 (ii) of the Editors' Code.

The complaint was only partly upheld. IPSO rejected the other points raised, including objections to the "pro-Iranian" label, a quoted adviser's reference to indoctrination, the line that the organisation had refused to condemn Hamas, the reported reasons for the cancellation, the omission of the camp's safeguarding record, and a complaint under the discrimination clause.

The remedy

The Telegraph must publish a correction agreed with IPSO stating that the link between the kite-making and the 7 October attacks was the paper's own inference, recording the organisation's denial, and making clear that it follows an upheld ruling. It is to appear in the print Corrections and Clarifications column and online, beneath the headline if the article is unchanged or as a footnote if it has been amended.

Why it matters

Misreported has documented repeatedly how coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict generates errors in both directions. This ruling is a reminder that the risk is not confined to reports critical of Israel. Associating children's activities with a terrorist atrocity is among the gravest suggestions a newspaper can make about a community organisation, and it was made here on inference alone.

The distinction IPSO draws is useful. Newspapers are entitled to report extremism concerns, to quote critics and to characterise an organisation's politics, and most of the complaint failed on exactly those grounds. What they may not do is present speculation as observation. "Apparent" is a word that does a great deal of work in British journalism; it signals that something is evident without saying to whom. When the only person to whom it was apparent was the writer, the reader deserved to be told.

The case also illustrates the cost of leaving out a denial. Including the organisers' response would have cost a sentence. Omitting it turned an inference into an accusation.