Debate contribution: British Government's Recognition of the Palestinian State
Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 22 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Matter of the Day
- Heading
- British Government's Recognition of the Palestinian State
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5123312
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The move by Keir Starmer to recognise the Palestinian state does more damage to a lasting solution in the Middle East than he could ever dream of. His decision was not about finding a lasting solution in the Middle East but about placating the loony left-wing members of his party. It was about that age-old Labour Party tradition of rewarding terrorism and those who engage in violence. Let us be very clear: we have heard remarks in the Chamber about the greatness of recognising the Palestinian state, but no remarks from those very people about the horrendous acts of terrorism by Hamas on 7 October. The truth is that those Members do not want the state of Israel to exist. They do not want our Jewish community across the world to feel respected. My party will never placate or reward terrorists. On Wednesday evening, I had the privilege of being at the Belfast synagogue, where hundreds of people joined together to raise funds to rebuild the kibbutzim that were bombed and shot at, and where people were raped and taken into captivity. I heard a message from one victim who lost her husband and children on that day. They know that the people of Belfast and Northern Ireland stand with them and not with the terrorists of Hamas. The decision that the Prime Minister has taken will not advance the cause of finding peace, but will further embolden the terrorists of Hamas to continue to try to destroy the state of Israel. Let me be very clear: my party stands with Israel and its right to defend itself. We will not allow those who continue to justify terrorism to succeed.
280 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
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: 0.58 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.82); Dog-whistle messaging (0.60).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.87).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.82 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.42 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.11 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.60 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.35 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.21 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.58 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.10 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.03 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.87 |
| 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 01:21 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.