Member's statement: Gaza War: Release of Hostages
Member's statement by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on .
- MLA
- Dr Steve Aiken OBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 February 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Gaza War: Release of Hostages
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4790237
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On Saturday, Or Levy, Ohad Ben Ami and Eli Sharabi were released as part of the hostages-for-terrorists swap in the latest Middle East peace initiative. The three men were paraded for Hamas social media propaganda, with the despicable spectacle of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) facilitating the terrorists' theatrics despite the clearly known requirement for impartiality and discretion. ICRC officials shaking hands with the terrorists for their propaganda needs is well short of what is expected from the Red Cross, a point that I for one, who has contributed to the charity in the past, duly noted. I will never support it again. The interview of Eli by the Hamas terrorists was cruel and evil, even by their standards. The fact that Hamas had murdered his wife and two teenage daughters on 7 October 2023 and kept that information from Eli is beyond heartless, yet they made him talk about it in the interview. It is also clear that, unlike their capturers, jailors and torturers, Eli, Ohad and Or, having spent 491 days in captivity, are suffering from severe physical and mental deterioration, including malnutrition, decreased muscle mass, heart disorders and prolonged infection. Comparing their condition with that of the obviously well-fed Hamas members brings sharply to the fore the difference between the reality and the false narratives peddled by so many. The comparison of Or, Ohad and Eli with the victims of the Holocaust is apt. They should also be compared with the victims of ISIS, the Houthis and Hezbollah. They have all been conveniently ignored and forgotten by those who, in their antisemitic myopia, can only chastise Israel. Quite a few reasonable people have noted the lack of commentary since Saturday to condemn the treatment of those three men. It is more than noteworthy that those Members of the Assembly who regularly chastise Israel for its actions, as well as the Irish president, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the whole body of antisemitism on this island, have remained silent. That speaks volumes about their motives. We should all be worried about that. Or, Ohad and Eli deserve better. I hope that, for once, those naysayers will join me in wishing justice for the victims of 7 October, the release of all the hostages and peace in the Middle East.
384 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)
Flagged on a second assessment, because Jev’s answers did not settle it. The reasons are given below.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.67 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.75).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.87).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- The answers did not meet either automatic threshold.
What a flag means. A flag means the activity contains at least one instance of culture-war framing that met the published test. It does not mean the whole activity is divisive, or that its substantive arguments are wrong.
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.
Second assessment
Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works
- Verdict
- Flagged
- Public interest or divisiveness
- Mixed
Against the published rubric
Much of the statement condemns Hamas's treatment of three released hostages, which on its own is taking a side on a foreign conflict and would not qualify. However, it then turns to political opponents here, saying that 'those Members of the Assembly who regularly chastise Israel', together with Irish state leaders and 'the whole body of antisemitism on this island', have stayed silent and that this 'speaks volumes about their motives'. That attributes antisemitic motives to a group of fellow MLAs and their wider political tradition, and maps the Gaza conflict onto political divisions on this island. This meets the rubric's test for an identity-based attack on political opponents as a group.
Public interest or divisiveness
Condemning the cruel treatment of hostages and calling for their release and for peace is a legitimate expression of concern. But the closing part of the statement is mainly point-scoring. It casts critics of Israel in the Assembly and in Irish public life as motivated by antisemitism, rather than engaging with what they have said, and this deepens an existing communal and political row here. Both elements are substantial, so the overall effect is mixed.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.75 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.51 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.58 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.58 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.10 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.67 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.03 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.10 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.87 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:55 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.