Debate contribution: Gaza: Action to End Forced Starvation
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 9 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Gaza: Action to End Forced Starvation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5086581
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I take your guidance, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The omission of Hamas from the motion is perhaps not all that surprising. For the benefit of Sinn Féin, let us remember what led to this conflict. Two years ago next month, Hamas carried out the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, murdering men, women and children and dragging hostages into Gaza. In the text of the motion, that horror is tagged on as an afterthought at the very end. Of course we are all moved by the scenes of suffering that fill our screens, but it is wrong, morally and factually, to pretend that Israel is deliberately starving the people of Gaza. Since the war began, Israel has facilitated the delivery of millions of tons of food, medicine and fuel into Gaza. That is not the behaviour of a state that is using starvation as a weapon. What has happened to much of that aid? Contrary to what the BBC tells us, it is being looted by Hamas, just like it did with the foreign aid that was sent to the country in recent years. As the amendment rightly notes, Hamas is not only the cause of the war but a major cause of the humanitarian crisis. Aid convoys have been hijacked, warehouses have been emptied and fuel and food have been diverted into the hands of terrorists. Let me give two examples to back that up. Only last month, the IDF wiped out a group of armed men in Gaza who were posing as employees of World Central Kitchen. That charity confirmed that those men had nothing to do with its operation. They were terrorists who were trying to exploit humanitarian operations. In January, during a humanitarian ceasefire, no fewer than 50 fuel trucks intended for civilians were seized by Hamas. That fuel never reached the hospitals or the homes that it was intended to reach and instead went straight to the Hamas war machine. Here is the truth that the motion ignores: if the hostages were to be released tomorrow, the war would end tomorrow. If Hamas were to stop stealing aid today, the famine would end tomorrow. The motion is not about protecting human rights but about demonising Israel while excusing terrorists. By contrast, the amendment recognises the suffering of the people in Gaza while also recognising the reality of Hamas's crimes. That is why I reject the motion and support the amendment. To get back to Mr Kearney, it would be interesting to know what he thinks the UN position is on bombing cash and carrys. I am very interested to know that, Mr Kearney, because you were very keen to talk about the UN position when opening the debate.
454 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: 0.25 (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 (0.65).
- 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 | 0.34 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.24 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.43 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.17 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.57 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.25 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.33 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.65 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.87 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.09 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:03 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.