Debate contribution: Gaza: Action to End Forced Starvation
Debate contribution by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on .
- MLA
- Dr Steve Aiken OBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster 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 5086614
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. If possible, I would like to put some reason into the debate. Regrettably, the debate so far has just reinforced things that we have all said time and time again. We have had frequent mentions — on these Benches, we consider them to be inaccurate — of genocide, famine, apartheid, war crimes and the horrors of Israel. Thankfully, we have also heard from Members on these Benches about the conflicts in Yemen, Somalia, Darfur, Sudan, Syria and elsewhere. We should also hear about the Yazidis and what is happening against the Druze. Indeed, what is probably missing from both sides in the Chamber is a sense of balance about what is really happening. Quite frankly, none of us really knows what is happening on the ground. What I would like to talk about, though, in asking Members to support my party's amendment, is an actual answer that would bring that horrid conflict to a swift conclusion and end the war right now: the release of the 48 innocent hostages. Please remember the following names in your thoughts. For those who pray, please remember them in your prayers. They are Ariel Cunio, Alon Ohel, Eitan Horn, Avinatan Or, Elkana Bohbot, Evyatar David, Bipin Joshi, Ziv Berman, Gali Berman, David Cunio, Eitan Mor, Maxim Herkin, Omri Miran, Bar Abraham Kupershtein, Guy Gilboa-Dalal, Nimrod Cohen, Matan Zangauker, Tamir Nimrodi, Matan Angrest, Segev Kalfon, Rom Braslavski, Yosef-Haim Ohana, Itay Chen, Eliyahu Margalit, Eitan Levi, Sahar Baruch, Joshua Luito Mollel, Tal Haimi, Arie Zalmanowicz, Ran Gvili, Dror Or, Tamir Adar, Ronen Engel, Inbar Hayman, Guy Iluz, Asaf Hamami, Lior Rudaeff, Muhammad Al-Atarash, Meny Godard, Omer Neutra, Yossi Sharabi, Daniel Oz, Daniel Perez, Uriel Baruch, Sontia Ok’Krasari, Sontisek Rintalk, Amiram Cooper and Hadar Goldin. For those who are unaware, Amiram Cooper is 85 years old. Every day, my mind is haunted by the picture of the Bibas family and the horror of the fate of Ariel and Kfir, the children who were strangled by Palestinian terrorists — bear in mind that Kfir was only nine months old when he was strangled — and the fate of their mother, Shiri Bibas. How can anybody with any degree of humanity not understand those horrors and call for the immediate release of the hostages?
Please, if you are right-minded, join us in supporting our amendment.
We are approaching some of the key points in the Jewish religious calendar: Rosh Hashana at the end of this month, then Yom Kippur. When Yom Kippur occurs this year, it will be three years since those horrors were inflicted on 7 October. We, as a Chamber, should reflect on that, which is why I ask you to support our amendment.
453 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: 0.29 (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 (0.55).
- 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 | 0.27 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.16 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.17 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.17 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.42 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.29 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.28 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.16 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.55 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.95 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
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.