The Telegraph, on UK Politics, 25 October 2026

The Telegraph reports a Charity Commission compliance case into Restless Beings, prompted by a dossier from UK Lawyers for Israel. It attributes the key allegation to US officials in some sentences but then states in its own voice that Hamas controls the partner organisation, and it hands the final four sentences to an unanswered statement from Israel's counter-terror financing bureau. It also puts scare quotes around that partner's charitable status and quotes words in the headline that nobody in the article says.

7.3

Serious

out of 10

What we found

  1. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “that Hamas controls”

    What the words do
    States as settled fact, in the Telegraph's own voice and with no attribution, that Hamas controls Merciful Hands.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That Hamas's control of the partner organisation is an established fact, so the only open question is how close Restless Beings was to it.
    What is actually the case
    The article's own other sentences present this as a US government assertion, not a finding of fact: S2 says US officials say the organisation is directed by Hamas, and S10 quotes the Treasury's wording that it was "owned, controlled, or directed by" Hamas. In S3 that attribution disappears.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“US officials say is directed by”
    • Elsewhere in the article“owned, controlled, or directed by”

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    The Charity Commission has opened a case after a dossier alleged that Restless Beings shared staff and aid workers with Merciful Hands, which the US Treasury says is controlled by Hamas.

  2. Gives a contested claim the last word

    Serious

    “The Merciful Hands association in the Gaza Strip is a wing of the designated terrorist organisation Hamas”

    What the words do
    Hands the end of the article to a four-sentence statement from the Israeli government's counter-terror financing bureau, with nothing set against it.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That the allegation is the settled conclusion of the story, and that the charity's position has been dealt with and dismissed.
    What is actually the case
    The article itself reports that Restless Beings "denied any links to any terrorist organisation" and that its partner's contact with Merciful Hands ceased before any sanctions, and it records that the Commission has only opened a compliance case to gather information. Those points are placed earlier; the Israeli state's claim runs last and unanswered.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“denied any links to any terrorist organisation”
    • Elsewhere in the article“as we gather more information”

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Israel's National Bureau for Counter-Terror Financing said in 2025 that Merciful Hands is a wing of Hamas. Restless Beings rejects any link to a terrorist organisation, and the Charity Commission says it has opened a compliance case and is still gathering information.

  3. Guilt by association

    Minor

    “It is one of a number of British charities being investigated over links to the terror group.”

    What the words do
    Places Restless Beings into a class of British charities under investigation over Hamas links, in the Telegraph's own voice, before any of the evidence in the dossier is set out.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That Restless Beings is one of a known set of Hamas-linked British charities, rather than a body against which a complaint has just been made.
    What is actually the case
    The article offers one other example, the Al-Khair Foundation, and nothing in it connects the two organisations. The Commission's own words, quoted later, are that it has opened a "regulatory compliance case to examine the matter further" over a partner "alleged to have links to a proscribed group".

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“we have opened a regulatory compliance case to examine the matter further”
    • Elsewhere in the article“one of Britain's biggest Muslim aid charities”

    Show it in the article

  4. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “a now-sanctioned “charity””

    What the words do
    Puts the word charity in quotation marks in the Telegraph's own voice, so the outlet itself rejects the organisation's status.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That Merciful Hands is definitely not a charity and never was, as a matter of established fact.
    What is actually the case
    The basis offered in the article is a US Treasury designation and statements by US and Israeli officials, not any finding by a court or by a charity regulator.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“sanctioned in January by the US Treasury”

    Show it in the article

    “the supposed charity”

    What the words do
    Adds a second dismissal of the organisation's charitable status, this time in the reporting sentence that introduces the Treasury quote.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That the Telegraph has established the body is a sham, over and above what the quoted officials say.
    What is actually the case
    The quoted material that follows is the US Treasury's assertion. The judgment carried by "supposed" is the outlet's own addition to it.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“US officials said Merciful Hands was one”

    Show it in the article

  5. Headline goes beyond the article

    Minor

    “‘links to Hamas’”

    What the words do
    Puts in quotation marks a phrase that nobody in the article says, and attaches it to the British charity rather than to its overseas partner.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That someone named in the story accused Restless Beings of having links to Hamas in those words.
    What is actually the case
    The Charity Commission's quoted wording is that the partner organisation "is alleged to have links to a proscribed group", and the case concerns the trustees' oversight of that relationship.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“alleged to have links to a proscribed group”

    Show it in the article

Every underline is part of a finding. Press one to see why.

British aid charity reviewed over

A British human rights charity is being reviewed over claims that it is linked to a group controlled by Hamas. Restless Beings, based in east London, is accused of working closely with an organisation in Gaza that US officials say is directed by the proscribed terrorist organisation. The Charity Commission has opened a case against Restless Beings after it was sent a dossier of evidence alleging that it had shared staff and aid workers with , and worked on joint operations with it. The Telegraph separately revealed in August that The Al-Khair Foundation , one of Britain’s biggest Muslim aid charities, was being investigated by the commission . The FBI said the foundation was being used as a front to bankroll Hamas, and it is seeking to extradite Mohammad Yousef Hasna, its “global director”, who was arrested in London. Al-Khair has denied any wrongdoing. In the latest case, questions are being asked about what links Restless Beings has to Merciful Hands, which was sanctioned in January by the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control as a specially designated global terrorist entity. US officials said Merciful Hands was one of a number of civilian organisations which “claim to provide medical care to Palestinian civilians but in fact support the military wing of Hamas, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades”. They added that was “owned, controlled, or directed by” Hamas, and the military wing provided some of the organisation’s funding and specific operational instructions. A spokesman for Restless Beings denied any links to any terrorist organisation and said it would work with the regulator to allay any concerns. The spokesman said one of the charity’s delivery partners on the ground in Gaza had worked with Merciful Hands several years ago, but this contact ceased before any US sanctions. It was suggested that this might explain why some Merciful Hands videos bore the UK group’s branding. Restless Beings is facing questions over why workers wearing its uniforms have appeared in a number of promotional videos posted by Merciful Hands, and appear to be delivering aid alongside them. In a dossier submitted to the Charity Commission and seen by The Telegraph, UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) provided links to promotional material for Merciful Hands in which some of those delivering aid on behalf of the organisation between 2022 and 2024 were wearing Restless Beings uniforms. The UK charity’s branding also appeared on aid packages and banners in the videos. Nura Barzaq, described as a public relations officer for Merciful Hands, also appeared in Restless Beings’ fundraising and promotional videos between 2022 and 2025. Restless Beings said that it did not employ anyone in Gaza, that she was not a registered volunteer, and that they could not speak for all of her charity work. A number of other individuals appeared in promotional material for both charities, the dossier alleges. Restless Beings describes itself as an “international human rights organisation and UK charity dedicated to supporting the world’s most marginalised communities through advocacy, activism and humanitarian response”. UKLFI asked the regulator to investigate whether charitable funds or resources had been transferred to, or used by, Merciful Hands, and whether Restless Beings had taken appropriate steps to vet their partner organisations. A Charity Commission spokesman said: “We take very seriously any alleged links between a charity and terrorism or unlawful extremism. “Following concerns raised about Restless Beings and its trustees’ oversight of relationships with a partner organisation, that is alleged to have links to a proscribed group, we have opened a regulatory compliance case to examine the matter further. “We will be engaging with the charity’s trustees as we gather more information.” A spokesman for Restless Beings said: “Restless Beings categorically rejects these false allegations. We welcome any inquiry by the commission and stand ready to assist in any way possible as we have always done. “We are confident that our work with communities across the world meets compliance standards and as a grassroots charity which is majority volunteer-led, this allegation comes as a major shock to our team and volunteers. “Small charities like ours work tirelessly to bring about some hope and support for children, women and the elderly across the world seeking refuge and living through conflict. “We hope that this comes to a quick resolution so we can continue to put our efforts and focus back on supporting communities that need humanitarian assistance during difficult global times.” Matters ‘demand thorough scrutiny’ A spokesman for UKLFI said: “We welcome the Charity Commission’s decision to open a regulatory compliance case following our complaint. “British donors giving money to humanitarian causes are entitled to know that their donations will not benefit terrorist organisations. Where a charity works with an overseas partner that has been identified by the US Treasury as controlled by Hamas’s military wing, there are extremely serious questions about due diligence, financial oversight and the trustees’ responsibilities. “Our investigation uncovered substantial evidence of shared personnel, joint operations and funding between Restless Beings and Merciful Hands. We believe these matters demand thorough scrutiny.” The Telegraph attempted to contact Merciful Hands. According to a 2025 statement from Israel’s National Bureau for Counter-Terror Financing: “. “The organisation was established by the military wing of Hamas and is run by operatives of Hamas’s military wing. “The association was established with the aim of providing medical treatments to Hamas military operatives and it also treats wounded members of the terrorist organisation who have become disabled. “In addition, the association is used by Hamas’s military wing to raise funds under the guise of a charitable association.”

Read the original article on telegraph.co.uk (opens in a new tab)

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The Telegraph

Everything we scored from The Telegraph