Debate contribution: End Israeli Impunity in Gaza

Debate contribution by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on 24 June 2025.

MLA: Dr Steve Aiken OBE
Party at the time: Ulster Unionist Party
Date: 24 June 2025
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: End Israeli Impunity in Gaza
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5047530

Text

I made considerable notes for the debate. However, there is not much point in going through them. They were well-considered points. They spoke to points of international law, the Geneva Convention and the various rules set out under the genocide convention of 1948 and how those were measured. One reason why I asked to make a point of order earlier was my real concern about the word "genocide" and how it was used. We have heard from Mr O'Toole. We have heard about the International Court of Justice, even though the international court did not, in fact, say that Israel had committed genocide; it said that that had not been proven. Indeed, one issue that is going through the court at the moment is whether that definition can actually be found and whether it can be looked at. One reason why that is happening is that some of the judges, particularly the Russian one, have decided that they want to relook at the rules and what makes up the definition of "genocide". Let us make no bones about it: there is genocide. There is genocide in Nigeria. There is genocide in Sudan. There is genocide in Yemen. There was genocide in Syria. There was genocide in Myanmar. There is genocide all over the world. Have we debated a single motion in the House about real genocide and where genocide is occurring right now?
No. Absolutely none. 'The Law of Armed Conflict' — it would be useful for Members to have a look at that manual some time and read what is in it — is clear. It may not make for nice reading for people, but if the enemy decides to use mosques, hospitals, schools or whatever for military purposes, they can be attacked. That is not a nice thing to do — I know that; I have done it — but here is the reality: when they hide underneath those structures and fire rockets from them, they become, according to 'The Law of Armed Conflict', targets.
No, I will not. It is under 'The Law of Armed Conflict', so one would presume that other actors in this war would have the same sort of thing. Do the Iranians follow the law of armed conflict? No. Does Hezbollah follow the law of armed conflict?
No. Does Hamas follow the law of armed conflict? Definitely not. When Hamas went around on 7 October
When Hamas went around raping, murdering, torturing and beheading — do you know how we know that that happened? They live-streamed it. Why did they live-stream it? They did so because they were following the same activity that was being done in Syria by ISIL and in the Lebanon. If anyone who followed that and watched those streams says to me that Hamas, in any way, was following the law of armed conflict, I just cannot understand where you are coming from. There is another issue; one of the most fundamental issues. The motion, which is the first private Members' motion to be debated today, was tabled by people who still think that there was no alternative, because the IRA never used any laws of armed conflict: none whatsoever.
No, please. Hamas did not take any —
I did not point my finger.
What do we have here? We have a motion that completely ignores the reality on the ground in the Middle East. It does not talk about Iran. It does not talk about the conflict that has been going on for decades. It does not talk about the fact that Israel is probably the only place in the Middle East where there is a modicum of democracy.
Thank you. Some of us who have been at war hate it. There is nothing nice about war and urban conflicts. There is nothing nice about seeing cities being flattened. There is nothing nice about casualties. There is absolutely no way that we should be endorsing or looking at the death of women, children and non-combatants. I even feel quite guilty when we take out combatants, because I am a Christian. I feel a large degree of fear at what has happened to people across the world. What I am more concerned about is the othering of Israel in the debate and the decision to take out one actor and put it on a platform. If that is the way that you look at Israel and what it is doing, why can you not look at other countries and the things that they are doing? What is the one thing about Israel that so gets to you? What is it?
All right. Let us keep going with the antisemitism, shall we?
It is antisemitic.
I say this clearly: the only reason that you single out Israel is because it is Jewish.
The only reason that you want to do is that because of the Jewishness of it. That is it. That is every single reason.
Yes, they are chuntering, Mr Speaker —
— but they must listen to the truth.
When the truth comes through —.
I am sorry, I will run out of time in three seconds.

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

Assessment

Qualifying Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)

Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for a qualifying culture-war activity.

Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.74 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
Criteria met: Identity framing (0.67); Sectarian or communal antagonism (0.64); Dog-whistle messaging (0.73).
The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.88).
Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
The text adopts an antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which qualifies even alongside legitimate scrutiny.

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	0.67	Yes
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.64	Yes
Cultural grievance politics	0.13	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.73	Yes
Controversy escalation	0.59	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.21	No
Overall judgement	0.74	Above qualifying threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing	0.02
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.10
Adopts it (chosen)	0.88

Subject area (top five)
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 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification