Jill Stien

Rank 34 of 47
|
Score -49

The statement is a critical commentary on the actions of Israel regarding the humanitarian situation in Gaza. It highlights alleged harm and suffering caused by Israel's policies and actions, using a tone that suggests condemnation and urgency. The intent appears to be to draw attention to and criticize these actions, potentially to influence public opinion or policy.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement accuses Israel of causing harm, but it does not directly incite harm through its own words. However, the tone is accusatory and could contribute to polarization.
  2. 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 engage in cyberbullying or hate speech, but it is critical of a nation-state's actions, which could be seen as lacking respect for the dignity of those involved. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it focuses on assigning blame and highlighting negative outcomes without offering solutions or fostering dialogue. [-1]
  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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it presents a one-sided view without acknowledging potential complexities or engaging with opposing perspectives. [-2]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses its platform to highlight a humanitarian issue, which could be seen as an attempt to use influence for societal betterment, but the accusatory tone may undermine this goal.
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement exercises free speech to criticize a government, but the responsibility and integrity of the platform could be questioned due to the lack of balanced discourse. [-1]