Jill Stien

The statement and accompanying image engage in public discourse by discussing historical and contemporary U.S. foreign policy towards Israel. The statement compares the Reagan administration's approach to leveraging American influence over Israel with the current Biden-Harris administration's approach, suggesting a perceived deficiency in the latter's recognition of U.S. national interests.

1. Principle 1:

   I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.

   The statement does not appear to intend harm but rather aims to critique current policy by referencing historical actions. However, the use of strong language and historical events could be seen as provocative.
2. Principle 2:

   I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.

   The statement respects the privacy and dignity of individuals, focusing on public figures and their policies rather than personal attacks.
3. Principle 3:

   I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.

   The statement promotes understanding by providing historical context, though it could be seen as lacking empathy towards the complexities of current geopolitical situations.
4. 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 statement engages in constructive criticism of the Biden-Harris administration's policies without resorting to personal attacks, though it does imply a negative comparison.
5. Principle 6:

   I will use my influence for the betterment of society.

   The statement uses historical context to influence public opinion on current policy, aiming to contribute to the betterment of society by advocating for what the author perceives as a more effective foreign policy.
6. Principle 7:

   I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.

   The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform to engage in a policy discussion, though it could benefit from a more balanced perspective to ensure responsible discourse.