Fewer than ten Israelis had been killed by Hamas’ rockets; other options were undoubtedly open to the Israeli government. Was this show of force really the best option for advancing Israeli interests in the peace process? International condemnation will follow, the rockets will continue and the peace process will not be advanced. Hamas will not disappear, even if the people of Gaza return Fatah to power. The world, and not even Iran, needed reminding of Israel’s military might or its readiness to use it upon provocation. Israel may have been justified in striking back, but it is hard to see the wisdom of doing so.

Make no mistake here: the attacks by Hamas were intentionally directed at civilians and were, as always, absolutely wrong. Any government would be appalled, any government would respond. Hamas’s ideological obsession with violence holds back the prospect of a desperately needed settlement, no matter what Israel does. You can call Israel’s response ineffectual, heavy-handed, counterproductive, short-sighted, demagogic, brutal, tragic, heartbreaking — but disproportionate? This ubiquity of this word reveals perverse logic at work.

Freedom of speech is a great thing. Human rights abuse is a bad thing. So what do you do when you’re Channel 4’s chief executive, Andy Duncan, and a bright spark comes up with the idea of giving a Christmas Day TV broadcast to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — who is, allegedly at least, an anti-semite and Holocaust denier implicated in endemic, institutionalized human rights abuse? Grant him a platform in order to make an oblique point about the importance of free speech? Or deny him the chance to enjoy an unprecedented and gratuituous opportunity to propagandize?

I have no problem with the airing of inflammatory views in a context in which they can be scrutinized. But is a five-minute Christmas message really an appropriate arena? I suppose this is a question of taste, decency and common sense. Unfortunately, as we already knew, Duncan may be slightly deficient in these areas. As for those of us who take the human rights situation in Iran seriously (and those of us who fear the consequences should its bigoted theocracy be cemented in power by weapons of mass destruction) — we can, as ever, only sigh.

…this guy would be dead by now. Of course, if Bush were Saddam, he’d never have tried his luck. But he knew his action would be interpreted as an act of political dissent — in a country where dissent is now allowed. He may serve a short jail term, but it seems more likely that this will be brushed under the carpet. Personally, I suspect the arrogance of a nation’s journalists is a good barometer for its human rights health. The great thing about democracy is that we are free to express our utter contempt for our leaders, whenever we feel like it. Iraq, welcome to the club.

I suppose it’s too early to consider a reappraisal of Bush. But if his madcap $2.4 trillion scheme to democratize two of the world’s most troubled countries actually produces lasting results, the wider world (if not the US taxpayer) may owe him an apology. The arguments of Bush’s harshest critics often implicitly pend on the total failure of America’s efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. What if their efforts don’t fail? What if, in the end, it actually works?

Calm in the midst of crisis, or marketing in the midst of murder? Looking back, how the responses of city businessmen caught up in the terrorist atrocity in Mumbai tells us much about the media’s role in crises, about ‘city culture’ and about how individuals react to extraordinary events.

‘Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for thou art with me, thy rod and thy staff they comfort me’. In times crisis people look to many sources of comfort and strength. But the rod and staff of some seems to have been closer to home.

‘Fortunately, I had my BlackBerry’ said British lawyer Mark Abell, trapped in the Oberoi Palace Hotel until his release on Friday. ‘It was vital. You can go without water for a few days, but in that situation the one thing you cannot go without is information’. So city workers really are wedded to their phones!

Information; fair enough you might think. Barricaded inside his room from Wednesday night until his release on Friday he used his BlackBerry to follow events going on around him, to contact the British Council, to inform friends and loved ones that he was safe.

His name is more familiar than most since he was also featured on Thursday morning’s Today Programme on Radio 4. Still incarcerated Abell contacted the BBC in London and arranged an interview with Jim Naughtie on the BBC’s flagship current affairs programme to give an account of his experiences. Mark Abell, British lawyer, oh, and working for the law firm Field Fisher Waterhouse.

For the most part Mr Abell’s story has been portrayed in the press as a Brit keeping his cool. When the story appeared on the website of legal publication The Lawyer on Thursday however it had a somewhat frostier reception. ‘What an inappropriate time to try and promote one’s third division law firm’, commented one, ‘it’s a joke that someone who is in a life or death situation would take the opportunity to try to win some work’ said another. One lawyer even posted that he felt embarrassed for his profession.

The ‘incidental’ inclusion of the firm Mr Abell worked for might appear harmless. But some fellow lawyers saw this as exactly what it was, intentionally or not; product placement.

That’s ridiculous you might say. Who would possibly be thinking about work in that kind of situation?

But he wasn’t the only lawyer to drop work details around his story. Another lawyer, Jamie Benson, also posted a comment on The Lawyer’s website giving an account of the terrible events he had witnessed. After describing the events he then wrote that he was ‘working as a US corporate lawyer for Dorsey & Whitney’ and that he does ‘a lot of work on equity capital raisings for Indian companies, including for Central Bank of India, HT Media (publisher of the Hindustan Times), Jagran Publications Limited (publisher of Jagran Prakashan, the newspaper with the largest readership in the world)…’ and so it goes on. He told his story; then quite literally tagged his CV onto the end of it.

Furthermore consider that whilst incarcerated the BlackBerry-clad Mr Abell continued to attend Board Meetings being held by partners back in London. ‘Some of the partners’ he recounts ’said they would understand, given the situation, if I didn’t want to attend the meeting. I said ‘Why?’ You’ve just got to keep going”’. ‘Worse things happen at sea’ he later told interviewers. ‘I wasn’t going to let the terrorists put me off my stride’.

Catastrophes and atrocities are big media events and depending on our degree of attentiveness they imprint on our memory a whole series of names, places, facts and figures. How many people around the world had heard of Banda Aceh before the Tsunami of 2004, or of Rudolph Giuliani before 9/11? In a similar way it is the business of the highly developed PR culture in business to imprint products in our minds. What the house-trained Mr Abell and Mr Benson seem to have done, on thankfully only a small scale, is marry the two.

I do believe that the event must have been deeply unpleasant for Mr Abell and Mr Benson and do not wish to pour too much scorn on them individually. In a time of crisis one of the best ways of coping is to ‘keep going’ and generate as great a sense of normality as possible. But it is their normality that is so un-nerving. On some level everyday life, even in the most extraordinary circumstances, is not just lived, it is audited.

In their coping with the situation they seem to illustrate what a frighteningly inhuman place the world of 21st century work is becoming.

The polls were right all along — America has elected Barack Obama, and proved itself not to be a hateful, bigoted nation. I hope anyone who secretly expected a racist “Bradley effect” to propel John McCain to the White House is now hanging their head in shame: McCain won an honest 47% and bowed out with dignity.

This may amaze the world’s rather large population of anti-Americans. Those who inexplicably thought of America as a racist, ignorant hotbed of religious fundamentalism can now open their eyes. Those who would sooner side with Saddam, Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah, Hamas or the Taleban than spare a kind word for President Bush can now rejoin the ranks of the rational and support America again. But those of us who were pretty pro-American all along — and who rather liked both candidates this year — can be both unsurprised and cautiously optimistic.

My first thought is that the best outcome of this election might well be the Obamamoon: the months of sheer optimism before the new administration has to do anything. All this talk of the “racial barrier falling” might actually result in racial barriers falling. Obama’s election won’t lift the poor out of poverty or rebuild New Orleans, but it’s solid proof that America’s black minority is no longer disenfranchised and tyrannised by a racist white majority — and this can only aid social cohesion. Martin Luther King’s dream, technically speaking, has been fulfilled: Obama was judged not the by the colour of his skin but by the content of his personality.

Obama’s domestic and foreign policies — this is where I’m sceptical. But I wait to be proved wrong. I fear a human tragedy in Iraq if America withdraws prematurely, but maybe not — the surge has worked so well that withdrawal by April 2010 may now be feasible. I fear Obama lacks the experience to tackle global threats, and that Iran may get the bomb on his watch, but maybe not — perhaps this is sheer paranoia. And I fear that Obama, having pledged both a massive tax cut for 95% of Americans and a massive increase in federal spending, may turn out to be full of hot air and Blairier than Blair. But maybe not. Because, as we have already seen, this guy breaks all the rules.

Some in the GOP will blame Sarah Palin — they would be foolish to do so. Palin electrified McCain’s campaign at a time when it was already being steamrolled in the polls: she’s a terrific force and will surely be a threat in 2012. On CBS, she showed the vulnerability one expects from a state politician thrown on to the national stage without preparation. The McCain campaign should have selected her earlier and trained her better.

But McCain himself too often looked unready when the cameras were rolling. McCain’s erratic answers and cranky attitude in the first and second debates undercut every argument to make him president. And yes, the McCain campaign has far less cash — but that was no reason to waste that cash on irrelevant ads about Obama’s distant past. The real John McCain would have made a good president — but we haven’t seen him in this election.

Monday 27th October, 8.45pm

On the back of Tuesday’s successful talk from Salim Tamari, Clare Politics brings you another must-see event, as Jodi Williams addresses the society.

As one of the first member’s of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign - a campaign which by now has reached the home straight - she helped catapult the relatively unknown Senator to presumptive Democratic nominee. Having focused on press logistics, executing events in the campaign field and managing and disseminating the Obama campaign message to national and international press corps, her talk will provide an invaluable first-hand account of the realities of presidential campaigning. What could be more topical?

In the past, Jodi Williams has been a consultant to both Henry Kissinger and former White House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty, personal aide to John Kerry, and has worked as a consultant with a group of international leaders to prepare a report on the global water crisis for the Clinton Foundation.

As is evident, this will undoubtedly be a talk of great relevance and interest from a speaker of huge experience in American presidential politics. It’s the perfect event in the run-up to the election, scheduled to take place on the 4th November.

Entrance is free (as always), and wine will be served. With the Bennett Room packed during last week’s talk, be sure to arrive early!

Monday 27th October, 8.45pm - Bennett Room, Memorial Court, Clare College

Click here for a map showing the location of the Bennett Room.

However, the opportunity is still there via the blog! We are always eager for your comments, and the debate does not have to end with the talk.

Therefore please do feel free to the Clare Politics site as a springboard for discussion and don’t let your opinion go unheard. Indeed, we are always looking for more blogwriters - if you think you might be interested, email me or anyone else on the committee . We look forward to hearing from you!

So Clare Politics is back under new administration and with a great line up of speakers this term and next - beginning with a talk from Professor Salim Tamari.

Professor Tamari is an undisputed Palistinian expert: not only is he the director of the Institute of Jerusalem Studies, he also teaches of sociology at Birzeit University, acts as visiting professor at Berkeley and Clare and edits Hawliyyat al Quds and Jerusalem Quarterly. He has worked with the Palistinian authority and has written countless publications, including in 2007 a collection of essays on the ‘Contested Modernity of Palestine’.

Needless to say, this is an excellent opportunity to hear what promises to be a hugely interesting and informative talks from a man of unparalleled experience.

As is usual, Professor Tamari will speak for around half an hour before opening up to a prolonged question and answer session. Entrance and refreshments are free. Turn up early to grab a good seat and a glass of wine!

Tuesday 21st October, 8.45pm - Bennett Room, Memorial Court, Clare College

Click here for a map showing the location of the Bennett Room.