On 6 November, the humanitarian doctor Raphaël Pitti appeared in Nancy before the Trial Disciplinary Chamber of the Order of Great East Physicians. The Association des médecins israélites de France (AMIF) disputes in particular its statement that the situation in Gaza is genocide. The case was deliberated.
Gaza: Raphael Pitti defends his testimony
The complaint concerns his television interventions of May 2025. According to the report of the regional press, AMIF denounces information which it considers defamatory and incompatible with its function. His lawyer, Frédéric Hutman, believes that his formulations harm the Jews of France. He also blames him for a different vocabulary than that used for other conflicts.
Pitti opposed these accusations his experience of Gaza hospitals: shortages of medicines, oxygen and equipment, amputations and patients impossible to save. At the hearing, he defended the need to testify. No sanction was announced. The decision is expected within about one month.
This position is in line with a line he had already publicly stated. In an interview resumed on 19 June 2025 by HuSoMe, the NGO he founded, the doctor presented care and testimony as two complementary obligations. He claimed that he did not support Hamas or any armed forces. Anesthesist-reactor specialized in war medicine, he linked his public interventions to the collapse of treatment possibilities, including for chronic patients.
Professional procedure, not judgment on Gaza
The ordinal court examines possible breaches of a doctor’s professional obligations. It does not replace the criminal judge or international courts. His referral therefore does not mean that a fault has been recognised. Nor does it allow the use of the word genocide to be described as illegal in itself.
The code of ethics may apply to behaviour outside medical consultation. Article 31 refers to acts which may detract from the profession. The National Council specifies that this rule also applies to certain private or public activities. That general framework does not prejudge the provisions actually adopted in the Pitti file or their interpretation by the Board.
Article L. 4124-6 of the Public Health Code provides for several occupational sanctions: warning, reprimand, temporary prohibition of exercise or cancellation. This legal scale does not indicate the sanction that may be requested in this case. Decisions of first instance may be appealed to the National Disciplinary Chamber.
What the Arcom really examined
Another separate file concerned the program « Quel époque! » broadcast on May 11, 2025. In an intervention adopted on 24 September and published on 15 December 2025, Arcom had identified two problems. The first concerned the presentation of Pitti only as a humanitarian doctor, without specifying his municipal office in Metz or his candidature for legislative office.
The second concerned the comparison between images of hungry children in Gaza and those of the Nazi camps. The Authority considered that this comparison had not been contextualised on the set. It had asked the chain to be more vigilant in the moderation of such debates, taking note of the apology made in the next broadcast. This intervention with a broadcaster does not constitute a disciplinary sanction against the doctor.
Commission of Inquiry and International Court: two distinct levels
The debate on the term genocide also requires chronological precision. On 16 September 2025, the independent international commission of inquiry mandated by the UN Human Rights Council concluded that Israel had committed genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza. Its findings are those of an investigative body, not a judgment of the International Court of Justice.
South Africa’s proceedings before this Court follow a separate timetable. An order of 21 May 2026 set 22 November 2027 the expiry of the South African reply to the Israeli writings. A distinction must therefore be made between the findings of a commission, the provisional measures of the Court and a judgment on the merits. The disciplinary chamber of Nancy must, for its part, decide on Raphaël Pitti’s professional file.
Comments