Debate contribution: End Israeli Impunity in Gaza

Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on 24 June 2025.

MLA: Mr Jonathan Buckley
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 24 June 2025
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: End Israeli Impunity in Gaza
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5047505

Text

I speak on my behalf. I oppose it not because I dismiss the suffering of the people in Gaza or because I reject the right of Palestinians to safety, dignity and statehood. I deplore every loss of innocent life throughout the conflict. I oppose the motion because it presents a dangerous, one-sided narrative that risks undermining any genuine path to peace. The motion condemns Israel in sweeping, absolutist terms, labelling its actions as genocide and war crimes without acknowledging the context of a brutal and ongoing conflict initiated by Hamas on 7 October. I do not recall motions calling for the immediate release of the hostages or condemning the actions that took place. Let us remember that, on that fateful day, over 1,000 Israeli civilians were brutally murdered — they were massacred — hundreds were taken hostage and the rapes of innocent women and young girls were documented. To entirely omit that context is not just misleading but morally irresponsible —
— and dishonest. I will in a moment. Shockingly, the motion fails to condemn Hamas for using civilians as human shields, embedding military infrastructure in schools —
— and hospitals and indiscriminately firing rockets into Israeli towns. I give way to Mr Tennyson.
The Member is being deliberately misleading about the wording of the motion; that is the context.
I have heard much in this place about a blockade of aid to Gaza. The United Nations alone spent approximately £4·5 billion in Gaza between 2014 and 2020. What was much of that aid used for? Not to build roads, schools or hospitals but to build an elaborate network of tunnels that Hamas used to kidnap, torture and rape innocent civilians.
So, please —
No, I do not have time at this stage. — let us remember that Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation, and it deserves to be treated as such. To ignore Hamas's responsibility is to ignore the root cause of the conflict. Once more, the motion ignores the suffering of Israeli civilians, including children living under the constant threat of attack by Hamas. I visited Israel. I went to a kibbutz. I saw how elaborate bomb shelters had to be no more than 10 to 20 metres from their playgrounds. Those people and that land have the right to defend themselves against such attacks. Once more, the motion condemns Israel's targeting of civilian infrastructure and personnel, yet it conveniently omits the documented use, as has been mentioned, of hospitals, schools and ambulances as military assets. Israel has repeatedly said that it targets militants and their infrastructure while taking steps to minimise civilian harm: measures not afforded by Hamas. In closing, I will say this: if we are truly committed to peace and want to recognise all suffering — I recognise that some have the will to do that — we must support efforts that recognise the responsibilities and rights of both peoples. I say to the Alliance Party that the amendment fits exactly what Mr McMurray said, and I call on it to consider supporting the amendment, which shows a road to peace that requires nuance, balance and honest engagement, not one-sided condemnation.

526 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.18 (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).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.50).
Subject area: Another identity-related subject.
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.51	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.20	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.20	No
Controversy escalation	0.11	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.42	No
Overall judgement	0.18	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.50
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.08
Adopts it	0.42

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Another identity-related subject	0.43
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)	0.22
No identity-related subject	0.15
Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers	0.11
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.07

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.

Challenge this classification