The role and polity of tactical nationalism has become increasingly visible within the United States as its previous foreign policy framework of direct military intervention into foreign states has waned1. Since 2009, elements within the United States Empire and its multilateral partner states and dependencies have searched for a range of opportunities2
While the so-called "War on Terror" polemic has obviously lapsed and become inoperable, the overall tendency toward polity of intervention into foreign states has not diminished. As the end of 2012 approaches and 2013 begins, the United States Empire and its primary dependency the United Kingdom, are cautiously but actively engaged with a policy of intervention into the sovereign state of Syria. At present, the country is in the midst of appalling human rights abuses5 committed by ultra-nationalists6 intent on deposing the socialist government of Bashar al-Assad, a key foreign policy initiative7 of elements of the United States and United Kingdom. Since 2011, both the United States and United Kingdom have allowed nationalist elements within their ranks to articulate subversive polity directed toward Syria.
A civil conflict which might otherwise have been abbreviated in a timely manner, has been elongated beyond its life by nationalist elements within the U.S multilateral cartel8 hell-bent on toppling yet another Muslim state. At present, both the United States and British governments have acceded to the policy initiatives of British and U.S nationalists at the expense of the ordinary citizenry of Syria9.
The driving motivator of this current foreign policy failure, therefore, is tactical nationalism.
In places where strident nationalism has been in vitro from 2011 to present, requests for intervention by the United States have been persistently made by foreign nationalists10
While these calls for intervention seem most noticeably to be of foreign origin, they have rarely originated solely from outside the United States itself15. They have in fact been joined, and in some case prompted, by American nationalists acting from within the corporate media system within Washington16. Where these internal and external calls to intervention have coalesced together in either economic or political form, striking and violent military action from the Empire or its allies has resulted in interventions in Korea [1950-1953], Vietnam [1955-1972], Laos [1962-1975], Dominican Republic , Laos & Cambodia , Cambodia , North Vietnam , Nicaragua , El Salvador , Lebanon , Grenada , Libya , Haiti , Panama , Libya , Iraq [1991-2003], Somalia [1992 - 1995], Bosnia [1993-1995], Haiti [1994 - 1995], Iraq , Afghanistan and Sudan , Serbia , Afghanistan [2001-present], Yemen [2001-present], Iraq [2003-2011], Liberia , Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea , Pakistan [2004-present], Somalia , Iraq [2010-2011], Libya , Pakistan  and Somalia .
It is clearly the case that this current period of nationalism has been responsible for serious and chronic on-going human rights abuses. To date, there is no known attempt by any non-nationalist entity to abbreviate or disable these abuses, either from within the empire, or from within the ranks of the empires multilateral partners. In fact, the 'arena' is heavily crowded by nationalist elements to such a degree that most, if not all, narratives have become septic.
Nationalism17 describes the mechanism by which a people derive and enact their collective psychological and geographical identity. In its most common form nationalism may form around ideas of national myth, heritage, birth right, ethnicity, colonialism or assimilation. While nationalism may be seen as being a loose and informal narrative which forms over extended periods of time, the term is better understood as having trivial and non-trivial period specific components. In its trivial form, nationalism may be represented as being a common series of 'public values' centred around the intermixing of myth with heritage; understood informally by the populace through collective folklore, passed down through the generations by word of mouth or popular sing-song. Nationalism is, therefore, a romanticised inter-public discourse in which the popular collective identity is articulated across the generational divide by popular folklore.
In its non-trivial form, nationalism is a manufactured endeavour undertaken by a nationalist authority in which its own history to build dominance of authority over the populace is articulated as being the history of the populace, thereby enabling sovereignty. Nationalism is, in this sense, an authoritarian tendency in which citizenry is required to capitulate before the historic authority. By the act of capitulation, the nationalist is formed.
For a national authority, the history of its struggle to territorially dominate and assert itself over time will form the 'national histrionic' using the polemic of political, ethnic or religious 'schism'. As a result, popular identity in collective form becomes the history of authoritarian struggle for territorial dominance. Ordinarily within any given territory, competition for control of the various developed national schism's will be in a constant state of revision and correction as sovereignty finds it necessary to further ingratiate itself to the populace. At any given time, the national schism may be truncated or accelerated by political forces for political effect. This may occur as a result of handicap of power, excessive revision of folklore, ethnic persecution, colonisation and assimilation or in some cases, severe trauma or sudden invasion. Broadly speaking, nationalism is a latent and benign force acting from within society but periodically may become nascent due as a result of political interference.
Latent nationalism can be understood as being the character of a territories people in heritage and cultural form as represented and celebrated within periods of national stability. The gluing of national culture and heritage together ordinarily provides the combinatorial framework for political discourse and planned revision. During times in which perceptual stability is strongly represented, and therefore where nationalism is demonstrably in its latent form, the gluing of culture and heritage is a process that is ordinarily driven by ethnic displacement, migration, economic stability along with religious or secular popular ideology where it exists. Very obviously, latent nationalism is rarely seen as being the seed of conflict, but more a binding national twine in which ethnic, cultural, political, economic and societal stabilities are roped together to form a coherent national netted identity.
The stability of this netted identity provides the mechanism by which many of the endeavours of state can become progressively autonomous. For instance, in the areas of policing, taxation, welfare and local governance, regimented consensus among the populace allows the populace itself to take on board much of the state's enforcement doctrine to such a degree that national government becomes less intrusive; and therefore less authoritive. A people that are happy in their national identity and who feel safe from outside interference, are far easier to govern because they are more open to being governed.
Latent nationalism will ordinarily manifest in increasingly trivial form over time as governance becomes subject to autonomous self-enactment in the populace. Latent nationalism is, by its nature, stable and characterised by straightforward polity at the domestic level. The majority of the world's nation states are of a latent nationalist type with strident stability seen in those nation states with uninterrupted popular history, low rate of invasion, high rates of popular autonomy, manageable rates of immigration, low rates of external intervention into foreign states and controlled competent economia. International stability as a doctrine is critically dependent on the inclusion of nation states of a latent nationalist type.
Nascent nationalism relates to the transmission of nationalism as an identity from its latent status to an agitated revisionist status. This may occur because the populace perceive changes to its ethnic structure through migration or because the sitting authority or government have been successfully challenged and require motivation of the populace to a defensive national posture. Where increased rates of immigration occur, cultural and religious values can become subject to change, thereby motivating nationalist sentiment in defensive or proscriptive form. However, this may also occur as a result of political policy which acts on a populace in service to polity which does not easily fit within the confines of the cultural and societal values of the populace, i.e. political interference. The polity of globalisation, for instance, can often be perceived as being antagonistic to the cultural and societal values of a territorial people. Interdependence when it is used to describe the spread of free-trade can often be seen as the mechanism which drives migration across territories which in turn drives nationalism from latent to nascent status in every territory where that migration takes place.
Geopolitics can often reduce a nation state to a perpetual state of nascent nationalism. In regions in which a nation state acts to spread its political and military influence, the domestic populace may be exposed to a never-ending cycle of ideological propaganda with the intention of undermining the national identity of its populace, in order to force them to imbibe a strategic or tactical policy to enable political or military expansion. In the United States and United Kingdom, the politics of 'Atlanticism' form the kernel of political discourse which is routinely used to revise the U.K national identity toward domestic political 'diffusion'; a lack of coherent support for any given domestic idea, in order to enable unchallenged reign of the 'trans-Atlantic' relationship. Multi-culturalism, human-rights law, the European Union (E.U), immigration, migration and religion are all used in proscriptive form to consolidate and strengthen this polity.
Where nascent nationalism is seen in a territory of region, irrespective of its cause, segmentation of the populace will occur leading to separatism, isolationism and eventually conflict of some type. Where a territory alights into open conflict; ethnic, religious, and cultural differences often abound throughout the populace which will go on to cause ethnic cleansing, ethnic proscription and industrial warfare. Due to the complexity of nationalist conflict, trivial and non-trivial actors will often collide in order to defend their interests in territorial and political form.
In a nation state that has seen its nationalist identity corrupted or revised to affect some outcome, especially where that outcome has been violent, political nationalists and opportunists are almost always the culprit. For much of the world, domestic nationalists are successfully curtailed within governmental or judicial system which allow for the selective abbreviation of internal 'subversives'. In a number of nation states, especially those concerned with foreign interventions and maintaining regional influence beyond their borders, political nationalists are often given free-reign to operate in order to maintain a segmented populace along nationalist poles. This policy, where it exists, is ordinarily understood as being 'tactical nationalism'.
Tactical nationalism describes the policy of prompting nationalist polity at the domestic level, while aiding foreign nationalists at the international level, in order to qualify the domestic nationalist polity at home. In short; creating a domestic ideological banner, which can be consolidated abroad - thereby legitimising it at home. For the bulk of nationalists around the world, international influence cannot be maintained due to economic or military limitations and so any nationalist polity attempted is ordinarily confined to a domestic scope. For a number of nations around the world namely nation states of the European Union and multilateral partners18
This toolset when used alongside and in conjunction with nationalist terrestrial broadcasters [Fox, CNN] amplify the nationalist polity and its interventionist message into most territories around the world, including those in which domestic U.S nationalists have a pre-existing interest. While much of the toolset described above in the electronic and broadcast sectors appears at face value to be commercially democratised and available for use by anyone, the domestic nationalist tendency to be able to effect domestic legislation and domestic government within the U.S ensures that this toolset will be subtly balanced toward the domestic self-interest of the nationalist polity. Within the United States Empire, all electronic communications going through, or arriving at, U.S web services are routinely monitored and scraped by domestic U.S intelligence services21
Where recent direct engagements on the international stage have been undertaken by the United States and its multilateral partners, including European states acting in the affairs of foreign nation states around the world, tactical nationalism has been the prime agitating force.
On every occasion in which this tactical form of nationalism has been attempted, the policy has been presented through U.S global media corporations and electronic toolset as being the result of international opinion. On some occasions, this international opinion has constituted nothing more than the personal views of a few dozen nationalists acting in concert with a small band of political opportunists in turn operating in concert with military, security service and on some occasions, corporate interests such as media and broadcast outlets. Where this kind of nationalist agitation occurs outside of the domestic polity, for instance directed toward a foreign nation state, the intention will be to consolidate the domestic nationalist agenda. Very rarely, if ever, will the domestic nationalists of the United States or its multilateral partners act outside the sphere and 'comfort' zone of nationalist pride.
Nationalism when used in its tactical form has a very heavy reliance on propaganda along with prompting and exploiting violence and the fear of violence23
In an era in which Globalisation abounds and many nationalist entities around the world have sought sponsorship from the United States, the proscriptions used by nationalist regimes and entities are globally similar. Obviously, this similarity most often presents as fabricated political counter-terrorism in relation to Muslims27, that being the periods most prominent narratorial shorthand currency. Throughout the present nationalist polity of the United States, the proscriptive devices most commonly used relate to the coupling of Islam to terrorism, and then on to the linking of Islamic terrorism to existential threats to Israel, the U.S nationalists 'favoured ideological state'. In service to this is an exaggerated polemic in which Islamic radicalism is given its own form of quasi-nationalism which is then inflated into an historic Caliph, or Caliphate.
So, in logical form, the U.S nationalist's current narrative is geopolitical and relating to the appearance of a worldwide Caliph in which the United States will need to expand and prepare in order to offset on the international stage. In service to this narrative, abstract and episodic evidence is often presented drawn from spurious and mostly unknown groups of minority political extremists in the Muslim world, with the intention of inflating the particular groups cause into a menace of global proportions.
For the most part these attempts present as mostly ridiculous and in some cases completely deranged28, but when disseminated on large audience broadcasters by mainstream corporations, inevitably the casual viewer is inclined to accept the presented diatribe at face value; and if the viewer is of a nationalist persuasion, even the most deranged diatribe may seem adroit.
The fundamental ideology of all western centric nationalism at present, especially where it is directed toward the subject of Islam or religion, is actively racist and intolerant by design. This may seem itself to be an intolerant statement, however, the sheer scale of the diatribe and the regularity in which it is disseminated hint strongly at a severe and clearly unstated prejudice which is enjoyed by nationalists through the meter of their objections. It is a fact that nationalists do not tolerate minority groups, it is a fact that we live in a globalised age headed by the United States and its Empire...and it is a fact that nationalists in that empire have manufactured three serious conflicts over the past decade all against Muslim people, in socialist Islamic countries; with the promise of a fourth in the very near future. It is of no concern, whether nationalists in the U.S are willing to speak freely about the ideology that drives them.
In service to these goals, the favoured mechanisms used to articulate nationalist subversion within domestic and foreign societies may include bombarding newspaper and broadcast outlets with false reports designed to cause alarm, worry and distress; seeding media outlets with corrupted information from secure sources designed to disseminate false information which cannot be confirmed...or denied; forming committees with retired members of foreign governments, military and diplomatic corps in order to claim sovereign legitimacy for a cause; carrying out targeted campaigns of intimidation and harassment toward friendly partners in order to claim persecution by non-existent enemies; co-opting opposition groups with the intention of steering public sympathy toward or away from the group's leaders; covert and anonymous threats of violence toward state institutions made in the name of an opposition group, and interference in monetary supply and distribution to spread subversive ideology.
Where a significant destabilisation occurs in the world involving calls for intervention by the United States, it will almost always be the case that domestic U.S nationalists will have been in communication with the persons making those calls for significant periods beforehand.
Fundamentally, despite all these complex and convoluted devices which are used in service to western centric nationalist dogma and polity, U.S. style nationalism is still overwhelmingly concerned exclusively with the United States status as an empire of the modern world. Economic, military and democratic strength go hand in hand with nationalist polity so all threats laid out by the nationalist from whatever foe may seem topical, will always be threats of a monetary, security or freedom loving nature. In whatever form these potential threats may take, it is empire that the nationalist exclusively reserves his fondness and sense of self-sacrifice for.
Tactical nationalism and multilateralism.
As outlined in a previous article, multilateralism as exercised by the United States Empire and its multilateral partners is a disruptive doctrine which has the effect of undermining the world's first and primary multilateral institution; the United Nations [U.N]. With alarming precision and regularity, the nationalist polity both inside and outside the United States is stridently hostile to the United Nations as an entity. Without fail, the nationalist polity will routinely denounce the U.N as an ineffectual body riddled with indecision while being slow to act. This should not come as a surprise given the nationalist dependence on reserving conceptual multilateralism exclusively for use by the United States and its multilateral partner states around the world. As the world's primary and only legitimate multilateral institution, the U.N is a direct competitor to the U.S in the nationalist mind-set, consequently, the nationalist polity in practice and ideology is fundamentally hostile to the U.N and, therefore, the bulk of its 193 members.
At present, the U.N currently has a wide-ranging29
In Sri Lanka, human rights abuses, torture and arbitrary detentions continue against Tamils even after the ending of a civil conflict in which heavy weapons were freely used against the unarmed civilian populace.
In Syria, nationalists attempting to depose the Syrian socialist government of Bashar al-Assad continue to commit atrocities in the country while pleading with counterpart nationalists in the United States to intervene.
In Libya, ethnic warfare is being waged by the nationalist government against political activists previously loyal to the Socialist President Muammar al-Khaddafi in Bani Walid.
In all of these cases, the U.N.s work has been seriously undermined and disrupted by the self-interest of the United States and its multilateral partner's.
On 7th November 2012 the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, made a written statement33 on his government's policy on Syria. He stated:
"I would like to provide the House with an update on Syria since my last statement (Official Record 18 October 2012: Column 34WS). This week talks are taking place in Doha between members of Syrian opposition groups. The United Kingdom, France, Turkey, the United States and other international partners will attend the meeting on 8th November. Our objective is to encourage Syria's opposition groups to unite around a vision for a democratic and stable Syria. This is necessary to offer the Syrian people a credible alternative to the Assad regime and to achieve an inclusive political transition that ends the appalling bloodshed and reflects the will of the Syrian people.- William Hague, Foreign Secretary for H.M. Government, United Kingdom.
As well as increasing our development assistance to the Syrian people we have gradually increased our efforts to build the capacity and coordination of unarmed opposition groups inside Syria. This includes the provision of technical, non-lethal equipment such as radios and emergency power generators, as well as training journalists and civil society groups on human rights. Earlier this year I instructed FCO officials to begin to make contacts outside Syria with political representatives of armed Syrian opposition groups. I informed the House of this on 3 September (Official Report: Vol. 549, Col. 54).
Such groups are playing an increasingly influential role within Syria as the conflict worsens. I have therefore now authorised my officials to have direct contact with an even wider range of representatives including military figures in the armed opposition. This will help us to understand better the situation in Syria and the relationship between political and armed opposition groups so we can properly support political transition. All contacts will take place outside Syria, and then only in environments we deem suitably secure. Each potential contact will be explored cautiously and on a case-by-case basis. Through continuous assessment, we will make every effort to ensure that FCO officials engage only with legitimate representatives of the opposition. We will continue to adhere to our clearly stated policy of only supplying non-lethal support to the unarmed opposition. All support is in compliance with both the EU arms embargo and our own stringent export licensing laws. In all contacts my officials will stress the importance of respecting human rights and international human rights norms, rejecting extremism and terrorism, and working towards peaceful political transition. British contacts with military elements of the Syrian armed opposition will be limited to a political dialogue including working towards and inclusive political transition."
While this statement is clearly compiled from apparent confusion within the Foreign Office [FO] about exactly what is happening inside Syria, it is of course unlikely that the British government can fail to understand nationalist polity when it appears, given the regularity with which it appears. The British government is very much more than the political parties which take Parliamentary turns to inhabit it. What is clear from the FO's statement is that the government of Bashar al-Assad and the nationalist polity of the Syrian nationalists and their sponsors are locked in a conflict in which the Syrian people are effectively being held to ransom.
Either one side in Syria may exercise temporary dominance over the other, but ultimately, the choice will be to what degree the nationalist polity responsible for this crisis will be rewarded for its efforts. If the nationalists in Syria and their nationalist sponsors in the U.S are rewarded, it will not be long before a secondary crisis of substantially larger magnitude will appear.
In this sense, the U.N has a clear mandate to act.
One of the fundamental properties of tactical nationalism is the natural contradiction which exists when adopting a nationalist stance to achieve a goal in a foreign territory, where that territory is significantly different in cultural, political, economic or societal form. It should be clear to the reader that nationalism is, by its nature, a closeted and heavily idiosyncratic credence heavily laced with the natural handicap of national geographic identity. A nationalist resident in one territory cannot, by default, understand the religion, culture, polity or economy of another territory. Any attempt to renovate a foreign territory that may be undertaken by nationalist polity is bound to end in failure.
Given the number of interventions into foreign nation states the United States has undertaken, and given the percentage of those interventions that have been controlled by U.S nationalists, it is a simple thing to understand why so many U.S interventions end in rampant and disastrous failure. It is an even simpler thing to understand how U.S nationalists have come to consider that any intervention, irrespective of how it ends, can be deemed a success, given the business interests of nationalists, and their financial proximity to the U.S arms industry.
In the domestic sense, nationalism can often manifest in nascent form by tactical nationalists with the aim of disengaging an ethnic minority from representation within society. This may be to delegitimise them, or to provide the mechanism under which conflict with that minority can be enticed. Where this occurs, either as a result of internal tactical nationalism, or where agitation from foreign nationalists takes place...ethnic cleansing often results.
Throughout most of modern history, nationalism has constituted the most persistent and chronic problem on the world stage. Without any shadow of doubt, the most violent and repulsive episodes in human history, have been committed by the nationalist polity and its followers. With nationalism, comes division of populace along geographic criteria and not ethnic or inter-ethnic criteria. In the modern period, the formation of identity on nationalist principle has obliquely introduced mass murder of large groups of people fighting for national not ethnic identity.
We know and have come to understand this as ethnic cleansing.
From the Armenian Genocide of 1915 in which 800,000 - 1,800,000 Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks were killed during an organised mass murder by Turkish nationalists - through to the mass murder of Jews, Communists, Poles, Serbs, Romani, disabled and other minorities during the pan-European Nazi, Ustaše and Bandera genocides of 1941 - 1945, and onto the appalling Rwanda genocide of 1994 in which 800,000 Tutsi's were murdered by Hutu's. Nationalists and their hatred of ethnic minorities and international law obviously constitute one of the world's primary threats to international peace and security. In the recent period, nationalism has rescinded in scale, but only insofar as being at a lower level that the exceptional period between 1900 and 1950.
The roots of tactical nationalism and ethnic cleansing.
Tactical nationalism derives from an unpleasant side-effect of democracy. In a democracy, the people are free. They are free to adopt and revise their history toward collective identity, free to tolerate any given polity and free to limit or reject that polity. The people are free to expect that citizenship within a democracy can involve self-governance and practical autonomy if their polity does not work as expected or is in need of refinement. The people are free to disengage with the toolset of state should it fall into the hands of delinquents, alternatively, they are free to engage.
But the people are also free to engage in behaviour that encourages segmentation of the populace along ethnic, religious and economic divisions. The people are free to operate with nationalist credentials across the strata of state...and in a world that claims to have globalised credentials; the people are free to interfere with the sovereignty of other states. Since 2001, this has been a septic problem among the nationalist classes of the United States Empire and an increasing problem among its multilateral dependents.
The by-product of this interference has been political multilateralism which has undermined the United Nations and the national security of both the United States and a number of its dependents. In all instances where this policy has been enacted, a very few number of individuals have been creating the seeds of conflict and have done so while building 'world opinion' through the tools of U.S global corporations.
At no time, has world opinion ever supported any such action, policy or opinion.
From 1945 to the present, nationalism has fully exploited the concept of national sovereignty and has engaged fully in actions and interventions on the international stage to consolidate and further enhance conceptual nationalism. The period from 1945 to present has seen an explosion of new nation states around the world, with formal borders haphazardly cutting across, and in some cases deep into, ethnic and religious regions with catastrophic effect. For the nationalist, these 'adventures' create an endless cycle of fractured social divisions not on the basis of the reality of latent and ancient ancestral principle held within a given populace, but along artificial lines of geography and economy. Not surprisingly, as the nationalist burrows deeper down into the limited vocabulary of their limited ideology, the world becomes a more violent and insecure place. Wars, ethnic cleansing, genocide and low-level normalised violence meld together into a single problem uniquely pleasant to the nationalist...the fight against international terrorism, a singular and one dimensional polity enacted as a single offensive policy, throughout the whole of the known world.
Nationalism is a deeply failing legacy of the post-war period. The nationalist tendency to perpetuate borders and barriers and blockades and sanctions to enforce these divisions cannot and should not continue to violate the peace of the world to the point where it can routinely lead to the mass-murders of entire peoples; which it has done, continues to do, and will do well into the future if it is not abbreviated and halted.
In light of these and other facts, globalisation can be seen as nothing more than the U.S economy violently enforced throughout the world by an incompetent U.S nationalist order with no international legitimacy at all.
"NYPD Commissioner Kelly stated - Al Qaeda operatives and those they have inspired have tried time and again to make New York City their killing field. We are up to 15 plots and counting since 9/11, with the Federal Reserve now added to a list of iconic targets that previously included the Brooklyn Bridge, the New York Stock Exchange, and Citicorp Center. After 11 years without a successful attack, it's understandable if the public becomes complacent. But that's a luxury law enforcement can't afford. Vigilance is our watchword now and into the foreseeable future. That's why we have over 1,000 NYPD officers assigned to counterterrorism duties every day and why we built the domain awareness system. I want to commend the NYPD detectives and FBI agents of the Joint Terrorism Task Force for the work they did in the case and U.S. Attorney Lynch and her dedicated team in prosecuting it."
Since 2001, the United States government, private sector, domestic security and public sector law enforcement community has been creating a national intelligence monitoring system in accordance with a Presidential directive issued by the nationalist president George W Bush under the U.S. PATRIOT ACT in 2001. In the act, the President outlined the need for the United States to 'Attain Domain Awareness' as part of its counter-terrorism provision. No reliable information is available about any single or networked system that may exist in the United States 11 years after the order was made. However, it is likely that any system that will now exist will entail trap and trace type technology being routinely used in conjunction with telecommunications infrastructure inside the United States and within the telecommunications industries of allied nations. Trap and trace and other 'quiet' technology is almost certainly linked to YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Wordpress and other 'networking tools' where public users are encouraged to upload information to servers located within the United States - which then serves to 'attract' possible persons of interest toward the surveillance technology. In this sense, an important segment of current U.S. intelligence gathering provision is 'crowd sourced'. U.S. Attorney's Office [U.S.] 23. 'Iran "finding ways" to supply more weapons to Hamas'. By Barbara Starr, 26th November 2012. CNN [U.S.] 24. 'Lieberman Accuses EU of Holocaust Attitude'. By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, 11th December 2012. Israel National News [Israel] 25. 'Israeli army spokeswoman comments on Gaza attacks '. It should be noted here that in a democracy, the military and its representatives have no legitimate voice. From the point of view of media ethics and best practice, it is not acceptable to allow members of a paramilitary organisation to articulate views and accounts which should be given by the democratically elected representatives of the people. Only in military states, totalitarian states or states struggling with authoritarianism is the practice of interviewing military personnel tolerated and only then with suitable clarification. In Israel, this practice of media corporations interviewing nationalist members of the IDF is tolerated as a result of acceptance among media corporations that Israel is effectively operating a military government under the guise of a democracy. When Israel is engaged with military violence against the Palestinian people, it is invariably the case that its so-called civilian leaders will be prevented from giving interviews to the media, as IDF nationalists take informal control. al-Jazeera [Qatar]. 26. 'Former British Armed Forces Commander Speaks About the IDF'. By Colonel Richard Kemp. 13th June 2011. Colonel Richard Kemp is a previously serving member of British Armed Forces who's service period came to an end in 2005. He was predominately deployed in Afghanistan and is one of a large number of failed coalition commanders deployed in the country. Since leaving his post, he has become a strident polemicist in favour of nationalists and the military government of Israel. IDF 27. 'Muslim 'terror threat' belied by numbers'. by Jim Lobe, 9th February 2012. al-Jazeera [Qatar]. 28. 'Beck: A New Caliphate?'. by Glenn Beck. 4th February 2011. FOX News [U.S.] 29. 'Following report on activities in Sri Lanka war, Ban determined to strengthen UN responses to crises'. 14th November 2012. U.N 30. 'U.N. seeks .5 billion to help suffering Syrians'. By Stephanie Nebehay, 19th December 2012. U.N. 31. 'Hillary Clinton seeks Syria action from 'paralysed' UN'. By Unacredited. 27th September 2012. BBC [U.K.] 32. 'Binyamin Netanyahu's UN bomb triggers derision and admiration'. by Harriet Sherwood. 28th September 2012. Guardian [U.K.] 33. 'Foreign Secretary Written Ministerial Statement on Syria'. 7th November 2012. Foreign & Commonwealth Office [U.K.] 34. 'Israel 'still investigating' al-Dalou family killing'. By Maayan Lubell, 19th November 2012. Maan News Agency [Palestine] 35. 'Strike that killed Gaza family was 'no mistake': Israel'. By Unacredited. AFP [France}