Debate contribution: End Israeli Impunity in Gaza
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 24 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- End Israeli Impunity in Gaza
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5047403
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I worry that Dr Aiken set a very clear tone at the beginning of the debate when he cited the IHRA definition and, as per his interpretation of that definition, effectively accused of antisemitism those of us, including those Members who tabled the motion, who care about humanity and want to call out the appalling genocide that Israel is visiting upon the Palestinian people. That speaks to a very chilling tendency to shut down debate from among those who will not hear criticisms and factual statements about the deeply immoral, evil actions of the state of Israel over the past 18 months and more. At the end of this century, most of us in the Chamber — I imagine nearly all of us — will be gone. However, there will be people alive in Palestine — I hope in a Palestinian state, living in justice and peace — who will remember the trauma of the past two years. They will be living with the trauma that has been visited upon their people over the past two years: 50,000-plus lives lost, many of them children. I genuinely do not know how Members in the Chamber can hoot, barrack and jeer when it comes to the profound moral obscenity of tens of thousands of children being slaughtered by the state of Israel. I genuinely do not know how people can do that.
The Member asked for an intervention. I will give him an intervention.
Let me say this: I deplore profoundly what Hamas did on 7 October. Let us get that out of the way, OK? I do not defend Hamas or have any truck with that organisation. However, are Israeli children being slaughtered by the tens of thousands? A legitimate answer to that question cannot simply be to shout, "But Hamas". Just before I got up to speak, I was on the website of the International Criminal Court reading the warrant for the arrest of Mr Benjamin Netanyahu. If there is any justice in the world, Benjamin Netanyahu will, at some point, face justice and, hopefully, live out his days in a courtroom and then a prison. Sadly, I fear that that will not happen, because he has been given cover by Western powers. Those of us who actually believe that Western democracies should stand for human rights and international law are precisely the ones who should tell the United States, the UK, the European Union and other Western states that to give the state of Israel cover for the obscene crimes that it has committed in Gaza and, over many years, in Palestine undermines fatally the idea of human rights, the rule of law and international rules. How can the West turn round to Vladimir Putin, who has launched an illegal war in Ukraine, and say, "You are breaking the rules", when Benjamin Netanyahu and his racist, fascist killing machine is allowed to go into Gaza and kill with impunity? Dr Aiken does not like me using strong words about Netanyahu. A couple of weeks ago, in the Chamber, he accused the Irish state of, I think, borderline Nazism because it criticised Israel. If he wants to use robust language about those who criticise Israel, I am afraid that he will have to listen to robust language from those of us who think that the state of Israel has gone far beyond what is acceptable in defending itself. Let me come to the point.
I do not have much time but I will give way very briefly.
The answer is no because, while Hamas is an appalling organisation, the Member is conflating two sides that are not balanced, frankly. The state of Israel secretly armed itself to be a nuclear power 60-plus years ago. It did so with the connivance of the United States and other Western Governments. It has launched a brutal, one-sided campaign of killing on the people of Gaza, whom it seeks to wipe out. There is, I am afraid, no balance in that situation. To pretend that there is a balance would be not just disingenuous, from my perspective, but immoral and wrong. This is an important motion. Those of us who care about human rights and the rule of law should support it. Those of us who care about all the people of Palestine and Israel — Jewish, Muslim and Christian — living in peace, dignity and justice should stand firmly against the obscenity of what is happening there at the minute. My party supports the motion.
752 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: 0.27 (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 (0.37).
- 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 | 0.46 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.17 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.33 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.27 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.30 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.27 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.27 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.36 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.37 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.96 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:55 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.