Double

Israel often seems to be held accountable to a higher set of standards than the rest of the world. There has been great condemnation of Israel's handling of violent Palestinian riots. The IDF's use of using rubber bullets on those who were armed with either guns or molotov cocktails was widely condemned. It is a double standard if Israel is condemned for actions that many other countries themselves would take - especially if those who condemn Israel are guilty of far worse.

In late 2000, Egypt condemned Israel's handling of the Palestinian riots only to end up using helicopter gunships and live ammunition to control their own citizens at a vote. Jordan did the same around the same time. One could argue that we are used to the double standards of Arab countries. This does not explain Sweden's condemnations just days before they used live ammunition on S11 protesters at an anti globalisation demonstration in Gotham.

Israel has also been condemned for its use of "targetted assasinations". This is used when a terrorist has publicly claimed responsibility for a major act, such as a suicide bombing, and then declared an intention to create further havoc in the future. To prevent more deadly attacks on its citizens, Israel will track down the terrorist, where ever he/she is and kill them. The world has condemned Israel for such actions, but applauds the USA who have gone even futher than this with Osama Bin Laden.

If a media report holds Israel to a different standard than it does to the world in general, or the Palestinian Authority in particular, then it is biased against Israel

The media can be guilty of creating stereotypes through constantly protraying people from just one angle, in only one type of situation. The Israel Defense Force has been victimised in this fashion. We are used to seeing pictures of the IDF in confrontations with Palestinian children. Despite the fact that Israeli soldiers take part in many humanitarian efforts around the globe, this scenario has been pushed over and over and over until the stereotype has been created. With the existence of the media created stereotype, every time the IDF is mentioned in a report, this is the image that comes to the minds of many.

An even more common stereotype is that of the settlers. They have been cast as violent, heavily armed, religious zealots who are occupying Palestinian land. The fact that most settlers are living in places that have shrines holy to Jews and have traditionally had continuous Jewish habitation for hundreds, if not thousands of years, is always overlooked. I still find it difficult to think of "settlers in Hebron" when this area not only has one of the oldest Jewish communities in the world, but also contains the second holiest site of Judaism - The Cave of the Patriarchs. The prime stereotype of a "violent, religious, settler", was created here in Dr Baruch Goldstein. In 1994, Dr Goldstein entered a mosque in Hebron and killed 29 Arabs. After this, the stereotype of the crazed, religious settler was set. The fact that the tiny Jewish community of Kiryat Arba in Hebron was intimidated for months prior by Arabs threatening to slaughter the Jews as they had in the Hebron Massacre of 1929 was never mentioned. Neither was the fact that arms were found amongst the Arab dead, nor the fact that the day of Goldsteins actions was the day the Arabs had threatened to slaughter the Jews. It is often straight after prayer services that Arabs have gone on violent rampages, and Dr Goldstein was in the right place at the right time to prevent armed Arabs from carrying out their threats. Had these facts been brought to light, could the stereotype of the "crazed, violent, religious settler" have even been created?