Debate contribution: Gaza: Action to End Forced Starvation
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 9 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Gaza: Action to End Forced Starvation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5086449
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I acknowledge the Sinn Féin motion — just words on a page — knowing fine rightly that those words on a page will have no impact or effect whatever. Yesterday, unionists were lambasted for tabling a motion about the Windsor framework and the protocol and the damage that they do to businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland. This is the first opportunity that Sinn Féin has had to table a motion, and it is on Gaza. The situation in Gaza is serious. The war in the Middle East is hell, but the motion will not have one bit of an effect — it will not change one child's life — yet Sinn Féin has tabled it. I look forward to Sinn Féin being consistent and tabling motions on Ukraine, Myanmar, Syria, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Congo, Mali and Haiti — I could go on to list all the countries that are involved in wars. War is hell, and the people who are most affected by war are innocent civilians. Does history not teach us that a consequence of war is famine? Members on these Benches and from all parties on this side of the House have always been consistent in condemning actions by the Israeli state whenever they needed to be condemned. We do so again today. However, I have never heard Sinn Féin condemn Hamas. It is Hamas that has had its jackboot on the Palestinian people for years and years, and it is Hamas that will be the barrier to a two-state solution in the region, because, if there were to be a two-state solution tomorrow, the Palestinian people would be locked into a constant Hamas regime that would do them down.
Yes, I will.
I will say it again: we have always condemned Israeli state actions that fall short of any convention or any humanitarian law. That is the thing about this party and about others. We have consistently tabled amendments, and we supported the Ulster Unionist Party amendment the last time, which was a balance. The UUP will say that the amendment that it has tabled today offers a balance. We do not necessarily agree with that sentiment, but that party has tried, whereas no effort is being made by Sinn Féin to be balanced in this regard. Therefore, when Sinn Féin utters words on Gaza, that is propaganda. It can be nothing but propaganda because it is not balanced. It is propaganda.
Yes, I will.
Yes, I can. I can very clearly state that starvation should not be used as an action of war. That is repulsive to me as someone who served in the Royal Irish. I could never abide by that under the Geneva Convention. My colleague Doug Beattie has raised that issue time and time again. It is really important that state forces, from any state, abide by the Geneva Convention, and, if they lapse from or breach that convention, they should be investigated, and people should be put on trial. That should be the case, and we have always been consistent on that. However, Sinn Féin will ignore and, in fact, cheerlead, at times, the actions of Hamas. If Hamas yearned for peace, it could release all the hostages that it holds today. Where is Sinn Féin calling for the release of hostages today, yesterday, the month before? They should never have been held in captivity, yet they have been held for months and months and months. Hamas will not even release dead bodies. Hamas could end this war tomorrow if it showed that commitment to release hostages, but it chooses not to. Sinn Féin chooses to ignore that very important piece of information, so I plead today that the House recognise the hurt that Hamas has caused not only in the state of Israel but for its own people.
Thank you.
641 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Not 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: 0.52 (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 (0.64).
- Subject area: Another identity-related subject.
- The answers did not meet either automatic 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.
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
- Not flagged
- Public interest or divisiveness
- Mixed
Against the published rubric
The speech engages with the substance of the Gaza motion. It states that "starvation should not be used as an action of war", calls for Geneva Convention breaches by any state to be investigated and prosecuted, and raises hostages and a two-state solution. It also contains sharp partisan attacks, calling the motion "propaganda" and claiming the party behind it will "cheerlead" Hamas, and it contrasts this with unionists being "lambasted" over a Windsor Framework motion. These attacks target a party's stance and balance on a foreign conflict rather than a community as a whole, and no people, faith or nationality is portrayed in a hostile way, so the rubric's exemption for taking a side on a foreign conflict largely applies.
Public interest or divisiveness
Much of the contribution is substantive argument about humanitarian law, famine, hostages and who bears responsibility in the conflict, which is legitimate debate on the motion. A substantial part, however, is point-scoring against an opposing party, with a tit-for-tat framing of "this side of the House" against Sinn Féin that edges towards mapping the conflict onto local political divisions. Both elements are significant.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.56 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.22 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.51 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.31 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.21 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.52 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.32 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.04 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.64 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.37 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.34 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.16 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.07 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.03 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:02 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.