Reposted by Bret Baier
The statement by Israel's ambassador to the U.S. regarding a response to a drone and missile attack is a clear example of public discourse. It addresses a significant international security issue involving state responses to military actions, which is a matter of public concern and policy discussion.
- The statement implies a retaliatory action which could potentially harm others, thus not fully aligning with the principle of doing no harm with words and actions. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others and does not engage in harassment or hate speech. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, focusing instead on a defensive response to aggression.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in a straightforward manner without personal attacks, focusing on state actions rather than individuals. [+1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- The ambassador uses his influence to communicate a stance on national defense, which can be seen as working towards the betterment of his society's security. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement responsibly uses the platform to communicate a national position on an important issue, upholding the principle of free speech with integrity. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.