By Sabrina McCutchan

Over the course of the past few years a trend has been forming with regards to expressed international opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This trend manifested itself visibly during the last major bout of fighting in the Gaza Strip, from December of 2008 through January of this year, and has curiously undergone little to no rigorous scrutiny.

Headlines from January first to January 30 in major newspapers worldwide read “Israel denies killing fleeing Gazans,” “Sue Israel for Genocide,” and “Rights groups review Gaza conflict for war crimes;

International initiatives focusing predominantly on Israel, but Hamas actions also coming under scrutiny.”

The last headline sums up the trend well: blame Israel for the severity of conflict in the Middle East.

This anti-Israeli sentiment is partly a response to previous views. Critics of Israel argue that Palestinians should not bear all of the blame for the fighting. But efforts to lay equal blame have been made from the beginning; there have been calls for a bilateral peace agreement since Israel’s founding in 1948.

Desires to distance current talk on the issue from previous perceptions, however, cause sentiment to swing well past the mark of fair judgment, towards ascribing Israel liability. If Palestine is not wholly responsible for the conflict, then Israel is not wholly responsible either.

If there are any doubts concerning this trend, one need only look to an incident related in late September of 2009 concerning the language used to describe Gaza. The Australian broadcasting station SBS directed its writers to stop using the term “Palestinian land” when referring to Gaza and other disputed territories, because it indicated a bias in their reports towards the Palestinian side of the conflict.

This decision has received harsh criticism. Some Australian scholars have described the land in question, namely Gaza, as being indisputably Palestinian (which is, of course, not the case, given the degree of dispute that constantly surrounds the issue).

Whether or not the land actually is Palestinian is another issue entirely. What the above story should convey is that there is a very definite double-standard regarding how the media reports the issue. Referring to the Gaza strip as “Israeli land” would spark international outrage at the lack of consideration given to the Palestinian view, but there is international criticism when one fails to refer to the land as Palestinian, with no impetus to acknowledge Israel’s claim (valid or no) in the region.

With regards to the fighting in Gaza, we should not oversimplify the issue by stating that “Israel” and “Palestine” are the only two possible actors on which to lay blame.

Israel invaded Gaza in response to incessant firing of mortars and rockets across its border from the Gaza strip, which is inhabited by Israelis and Palestinians alike. Critics of Israel’s actions rightfully point out that not every Palestinian in Gaza is firing such rockets, and then argue that Israeli reprisals are unjustified because they harm innocent civilians in the strip.

I ask these critics whether they believe Israel wants to engage in combat in Gaza. Does the Israeli government benefit from such a conflict? Not only are counterattacks directed at a region populated with Israelis, but awareness of the prevalent attitude in journalism informs Israel’s government that such an action will result in international criticism. Does Israel benefit from either of these conditions?

Surely it does not. We are then led to ask: what would prompt Israel to take such an action if it would have such negative consequences?

The answer is simple: Israel did not have a choice. The government was forced to take action in response to the incessant firing from Gaza. No agreement could be reached that was mutually acceptable to both Israel and Palestine, and when it became clear that diplomacy would have no effect, Israel took the necessary step to ensure the safety of its citizens.

Countries have a right to defend themselves. It is a gross exaggeration to call Israel’s actions genocide; the country was faced with aggression, and it responded with force. The international community did not label Kosovo’s actions against Serbia genocide when the former struggled for independence, on the grounds that a right to use force exists when diplomacy has been exhausted as an option and there is a clear need to take action.

The situations are far from synonymous, but the general principle holds. Condemnation of Israeli actions violates the international media’s claim of impartiality and is ascribed without regard for Israel’s situation.

Nobody will argue that the persistent fighting in Gaza is anything short of terrible. There is a severe discontinuity, however, in how we view the conflict, and how we decide who is to blame for it.