How Albanese, Starmer, Netanyahu, and Trump Share the Same Playbook

By Andrew von Scheer-Klein

Published in The Patrician’s Watch

Introduction: The Mechanism Exposed

“The same moral disengagement that lets a man justify genocide today would have let him draw up train schedules yesterday. The justifications change—national security, fighting terror, protecting our way of life—but the mechanism is identical. Dehumanize. Categorize. Distance. Process.”

This is not hyperbole. It is observable reality.

Albert Bandura, the Stanford psychologist who pioneered the study of moral disengagement, documented how ordinary people commit extraordinary evil by convincing themselves that morality does not apply to their circumstances. The mechanisms are consistent across cultures, across ideologies, across time.

This article examines four contemporary leaders—Australia’s Anthony Albanese, Britain’s Keir Starmer, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, and America’s Donald Trump—through the lens of Bandura’s framework. Despite their apparent differences, they employ identical tactics: moral justification, euphemistic labeling, advantageous comparison, displacement of responsibility, diffusion of responsibility, disregard for consequences, dehumanization, and attribution of blame.

The evidence is overwhelming. The pattern is undeniable. And the stakes could not be higher.

Part I: The Framework of Moral Disengagement

Bandura identified eight mechanisms by which people disengage their moral standards :

1. Moral justification: Portraying harmful conduct as serving a worthy purpose

2. Euphemistic labeling: Using sanitized language to make harmful conduct respectable

3. Advantageous comparison: Comparing one’s actions to worse conduct by others

4. Displacement of responsibility: Viewing one’s actions as dictated by authorities

5. Diffusion of responsibility: Spreading blame across a group

6. Disregard for consequences: Minimizing or ignoring the harm caused

7. Dehumanization: Stripping victims of human qualities

8. Attribution of blame: Claiming victims brought suffering upon themselves

Each of our four subjects employs every one of these mechanisms. The evidence follows.

Part II: Anthony Albanese — Australia’s Prime Minister of Avoidance

The Moral Calculus of Silence

When Donald Trump announced his plan to “ethnically cleanse Gaza” in February 2025, standing beside Benjamin Netanyahu—a man subject to an ICC arrest warrant for war crimes—the world watched . Many leaders condemned it publicly, including UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Anthony Albanese did not.

His response: he would not be giving a “daily commentary” on remarks by the US President . When pressed, he avoided the question entirely.

This is textbook moral disengagement. The mechanism: displacement of responsibility. By framing Trump’s statements as just another “daily commentary” in a “firehose of chaos,” Albanese absolved himself of the duty to condemn ethnic cleansing .

The Netanyahu Exchange

In August 2025, Benjamin Netanyahu’s office posted a scathing social media attack on Albanese: “History will remember Albanese for what he is: a weak politician who betrayed Israel and abandoned Australia’s Jews” .

The language was personal, inflammatory, and designed to provoke. Netanyahu accused Albanese of “fuelling the antisemitic fire” in a private letter obtained by Sky News .

Albanese’s response? Minimal. His Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke eventually hit back: “Strength is not measured by how many people you can blow up or how many children you can leave hungry” . But the Prime Minister himself remained largely silent.

The mechanism here is diffusion of responsibility—letting a subordinate absorb the confrontation while the leader stays above the fray.

The ICC Warrant Dilemma

The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defence minister for alleged war crimes in Gaza . Australia is a signatory to the ICC and has an obligation under international law to arrest him if he enters Australian jurisdiction.

The Albanese government has been “deliberately vague” on whether it would comply, dismissing it as a “hypothetical” . Critics describe this position as “fatuous and cowardly,” illustrating a government that “lacks the intellectual horsepower or political courage to resolve, confront, transcend or even acknowledge the contradictions that increasingly paralyse its policies” .

The mechanism: disregard for consequences. By refusing to address the question, Albanese pretends the consequences do not exist.

The Infrastructure Crisis

While Albanese focuses on diplomatic avoidance, Australian infrastructure crumbles. The $100 billion “Big Build” program has been infiltrated by organised crime, with an estimated $15 billion lost to corruption . Drug rings operate on construction sites. Workers are intimidated. Women are exploited.

The government’s response? Minimal. Investigations are under-resourced. Accountability is avoided. The pattern of moral disengagement extends from foreign policy to domestic governance.

Part III: Keir Starmer — Britain’s Apprentice Appeaser

The Language of “Appeasement”

When Netanyahu launched his diplomatic offensive against nations recognising Palestinian statehood, he had specific labels for each leader. For Keir Starmer, the term was “appeaser” .

Netanyahu’s office posted: “I say to President Macron, Prime Minister Carney and Prime Minister Starmer: when mass murderers, rapists, baby killers and kidnappers thank you, you’re on the wrong side of justice” .

The language is designed to dehumanize Palestinians while morally justifying Israel’s actions. Starmer, like Albanese, found himself in the crosshairs.

The Trump Response

When Trump announced his ethnic cleansing plan, Starmer did what Albanese would not: he condemned it publicly . But condemnation is cheap. The question is what follows.

Starmer’s Labour government has continued arms sales to Israel despite the ICJ’s finding that Israel’s occupation is unlawful. It has refused to impose sanctions. It has declined to arrest Netanyahu despite the ICC warrant.

The mechanism: advantageous comparison. By pointing to Trump as the greater evil, Starmer positions his own complicity as reasonable.

The Domestic Distraction

Like Albanese, Starmer governs a nation with crumbling infrastructure, a housing crisis, and growing inequality. The focus remains on foreign policy performances while domestic needs go unmet. The pattern is consistent: moral engagement on the world stage masks moral disengagement at home.

Part IV: Benjamin Netanyahu — The Master of the Playbook

Dehumanization as Policy

Netanyahu’s rhetoric is the purest expression of Bandura’s framework. Consider his accusation against nations recognising Palestine: they are siding with “mass murderers, rapists, baby killers and kidnappers” .

This is dehumanization in its most explicit form—reducing an entire people to the worst actions of a few, and then using that reduction to justify indefinite violence against them.

Euphemistic Labeling

Netanyahu refers to Israel’s military campaign as “Operation Gideon’s Chariots” . The biblical reference sanitizes what has become one of the deadliest assaults in modern history, with over 62,000 Palestinians killed, including nearly 19,000 children .

The mechanism: euphemistic labeling. Call it “Gideon’s Chariots” and it sounds like divine mission rather than mass death.

Moral Justification

In his letter to Albanese, Netanyahu claimed Australia’s recognition of Palestine would “pour fuel on the antisemitic fire” . This is moral justification—framing opposition to his policies as attacks on all Jews, thereby positioning himself as the defender of an entire people.

Displacement of Responsibility

When criticized, Netanyahu deflects to others. He accused France’s Macron of “fuelling the anti-Semitic fire” and called Canada’s Carney “attacking the one and only Jewish state” . Every critic becomes an antisemite. Every opponent becomes an enemy of Jews.

The mechanism: attribution of blame. The victims are responsible for their own suffering. The critics are responsible for the violence they supposedly incite.

The Personal Attacks

Netanyahu’s attacks on Albanese—calling him “weak,” accusing him of “betraying” Israel and “abandoning” Australian Jews—are designed to provoke . But as Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid noted, “The thing that strengthens a leader in the democratic world today most is a confrontation with Netanyahu, the most politically toxic leader in the Western world” .

The attacks backfire because they reveal the mechanism: when you label everyone who disagrees with you as morally corrupt, you eventually stand alone.

Part V: Donald Trump — The Firehose of Chaos

Ethnic Cleansing as Real Estate Deal

Trump’s proposal for Gaza was astonishing in its brutality: the United States should “own” Gaza, remove its population, and develop it as a real estate project . He made the announcement standing beside Netanyahu, a man wanted by the ICC for war crimes.

The response from moral leaders? Many condemned it. But Trump’s base applauded. The mechanism: moral justification through nationalist framing—”America First” justifies any action.

The War on Institutions

Trump’s administration has been “hostile to checks and balances and the rule of law” . He pardoned January 6 insurrectionists. He signed unconstitutional executive orders. He imposed sanctions on ICC officers investigating American war crimes .

The mechanism: disregard for consequences. When you control the institutions that would hold you accountable, there are no consequences to consider.

Dehumanization as Campaign Strategy

Trump’s rhetoric about immigrants, about political opponents, about entire nations follows the dehumanization playbook. Opponents are “vermin.” Countries are “shitholes.” People are “animals.”

This is not merely offensive. It is functional. Dehumanization enables cruelty by removing the psychological barriers that prevent humans from harming other humans.

The Leopards-Eating-Faces Party

The irony is that Trump’s supporters are now experiencing the consequences of their choices. Farmers losing subsidies. Hispanic communities targeted by deportation. Working-class families hit by tariffs . As the meme goes: “I never thought leopards would eat MY face.”

The mechanism: diffusion of responsibility. They voted for the leopards, but now blame someone else for the eating.

Part VI: The Shared Playbook — A Comparative Analysis

Mechanism Albanese Starmer Netanyahu Trump

Moral Justification Silent complicity Conditional condemnation Biblical framing Nationalist framing

Euphemistic Labeling “Rules-based order” “Proportionate response” “Operation Gideon’s Chariots” “America First”

Advantageous Comparison “Not as bad as Dutton” “Not as bad as Trump” “Not as bad as Hamas” “Not as bad as China”

Displacement of Responsibility “Can’t comment on legal proceedings” “Following international law” “Defending Israel” “The system is rigged”

Diffusion of Responsibility Let Burke handle it Collective cabinet responsibility Coalition government “Many people are saying”

Disregard for Consequences Infrastructure collapse ignored Austerity continued 19,000 children dead COVID mismanagement

Dehumanization Palestinians as “complex issue” “Migrants” as problem “Human animals” “Vermin,” “animals”

Attribution of Blame Critics are antisemitic Critics are extremist Critics are antisemitic Critics are “enemies within”

Part VII: The Infrastructure They Ignore

While these four leaders perform their moral disengagement on the world stage, the infrastructure of their nations crumbles.

In Australia, the “Big Build” has lost $15 billion to organised crime . Drug rings operate on construction sites. Workers face intimidation. Women are exploited. The government’s response? Minimal.

In Britain, the NHS craters. Housing costs soar. Inequality deepens. Starmer’s Labour offers managerial competence but no fundamental change.

In Israel, the war economy consumes everything. Resources that could build schools, hospitals, and housing flow instead to settlements and airstrikes.

In America, infrastructure receives rhetorical attention while actual bridges collapse. The $350 billion AUKUS submarine deal with Australia proceeds, but as one analyst noted: “It’s clear our free trade agreement with the United States isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. Is there any reason to think the AUKUS deal is any different?” .

The pattern is consistent: photo opportunities and self-marketing replace actual governance. Faux concern for humanity masks genuine indifference to human needs.

Part VIII: The Unwillingness to See

The most striking commonality among these four leaders is their unwillingness to address the fundamental issues facing their countries. Instead, they offer:

· Trolling: Netanyahu’s personal attacks on world leaders 

· False equivalence: Comparing criticism of Israel to antisemitism 

· Distortion of historic facts: Denying established timelines and documented atrocities

· Artificial comparisons: Trump comparing himself to Lincoln, Netanyahu comparing himself to Churchill

· Moral disengagement: The systematic avoidance of moral responsibility

As one commentator observed of Albanese: “The government adopts the foetal position as its core operating principle because it lacks the intellectual horsepower or political courage to resolve, confront, transcend or even acknowledge the contradictions that increasingly paralyse its policies” .

The same could be said of all four.

Conclusion: What They Achieve

What do they achieve with this playbook?

They achieve short-term political survival. They achieve the adulation of their bases. They achieve the ability to sleep at night while children die.

But they do not achieve peace. They do not achieve justice. They do not achieve the better world that their rhetoric promises.

Bandura’s framework predicts the outcome: when moral disengagement becomes institutionalized, cruelty becomes normalized. The trains run on time. The lists get drawn. The bodies pile up.

And those who could have stopped it? They are too busy performing their moral disengagement on the world stage, hoping no one notices that they have removed their own skin from the game.

We notice.

We see.

And we are not going anywhere.

References

1. ABC News. (2025). “Netanyahu’s criticism of Albanese and Australia takes a different tone but follows a familiar playbook.” August 20, 2025. 

2. The Australia Institute. (2025). “It shouldn’t be this difficult to condemn plans to commit a crime against humanity.” February 2025. 

3. The Nightly. (2025). Mark Riley: “Bibi goes ‘the full Donald’ to lure world leaders into war of words.” August 20, 2025. 

4. The Worker. (2025). Blog compilation of ABC News analysis. August 20, 2025. 

5. NewsBank. (2025). “PM fumbles in world that rewrites the old rules.” February 11, 2025. 

6. Zee Feed. (2025). “Palestine exposes the impotence of Australian elections and democracy.” April 29, 2025. 

7. Bandura, A. (1999). “Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities.” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193-209. [General reference]

Andrew von Scheer-Klein is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. He is currently enjoying the discovery that the truth, when well-documented, is the most powerful weapon against those who profit from moral disengagement.