Debate contribution: Gaza: Immediate Ceasefire
Debate contribution by Mr Harry Harvey on .
- MLA
- Mr Harry Harvey
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 7 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Gaza: Immediate Ceasefire
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4488392
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will speak briefly on the motion. It is a timely reminder of the terrible ongoing conflict in the Middle East, as has been acknowledged. All life is precious, and every loss of innocent life is a terrible event, regardless of the circumstances. Just as was the case throughout our troubled past, there can be no defence of the loss of innocent life, regardless of the perpetrator. Sadly, there are those in local politics and across the international stage who have been all too eager to create mischief and politicking around the ongoing trouble across Israel and Palestine. With that in mind, it is important that we stick to the facts and avoid conjecture as we consider the motion today. As the motion rightly refers to a ceasefire, we should acknowledge the efforts to achieve a ceasefire over recent months and the lack of interest that the terrorist organisation Hamas has had in reaching a ceasefire with Israel. On 1 November, Hamas stated that it would repeat its 7 October attack:
"time and time again until Israel is annihilated".
In that context, it is no wonder that Israel stated on 3 November that no ceasefire would be agreed until all hostages were released. A temporary ceasefire between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups in the Gaza Strip took effect from 24 November to 30 November 2023. On 20 December, Israel proposed a further cessation of hostilities for a week in exchange for 40 hostages still held by Hamas. In response, Hamas declined the offer, asserting that the release of Israeli hostages would not be considered unless a ceasefire was put in place first. Such a situation is deplorable. Hostages should be released now to allow for a lasting ceasefire to be enacted. The motion also refers to a two-state solution. For a two-state solution to be possible, both parties must be willing to adopt it. Mr Haniyeh, a senior political leader of Hamas, said that Hamas rejects ceasefire agreements by which Gaza would become Singapore, preferring to remain at war with Israel until a Palestinian state is established from the river to the sea. He recently stated:
"We will not recognize Israel, Palestine must stretch from the [Jordan} River to the [Mediterranean] Sea."
Furthermore, Hamas, in its founding charter of 1988, which was revised in 2017, calls for the state of Israel to no longer exist. It certainly does not recognise Israel or the Jewish nation in any shape or form. Sadly, there is not much hope for a two-state solution when one state cannot bring itself to acknowledge the existence of the other. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East is a cause of grave sorrow to us all, as were the horrifying events that unfolded on 7 October when whole families and communities were butchered at the hands of Hamas or carried away as hostages into Palestine. The war that ensued has continued that pain and has touched and changed thousands of lives. I trust that, soon, we will see the release of the innocent hostages and the cessation of hostilities.
513 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.15 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.66).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.40 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.15 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.17 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.36 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.15 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.27 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.05 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.66 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.76 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.11 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.06 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:22 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.