Strike repose: Hamas sits out Gaza violence

Hi, this is Christy from Back to the Bar. You've probably heard about GLP1 weight loss medications and the side effects that can come with jumping in too fast. That's why I love Noom. Makes getting started easy. Their microdose GLP1 program begins with a smaller dose and gradually scales up based on how your body reacts. The Noom GLP1 microdose program starts at $99 and is delivered to your door in seven days. Start your microdose GLP1 journey today at noom.com that's n o o m.com Noom micro changes big results average weight loss 8 pounds in first month meds and personalization based on clinical need and not available to all individuals. Medications are not reviewed by FDA for safety, efficacy or quality. Pricing based on first month only hey.

Ryan Reynolds here wishing you a very happy half off holiday because right now.

Mint Mobile is offering you the gift.

Of 50% off unlimited. To be clear, that's half the price, not half the service. Admit is still pre premium unlimited wireless.

For a great price.

So that means a half day.

Yeah, give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront.

Payment of 45 for 3 month plan equivalent to 15 per month required new.

Customer offer for first 3 months only. Speed slow 135 gigabytes of networks busy.

Taxes and fees extra see mint mobile.com.

Hello and welcome to the Intelligence from the Economist. Today from London, I'm your host Jason Palmer. Every weekday we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world. Generation Z is coming of age and entering the workforce, but not in huge numbers. We look at what's important to this latest generation of employees after a paradigm shifting pandemic. Mostly they want flexibility and on this day 100 years ago, Philip Larkin, a celebrated British poet, was born. We take stock of his work. Lots of charming stuff about English life, an occasional searing directness and a streak of prejudices that now threaten his legacy. First up though, A shaky ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants brokered on Sunday is still holding. It came after days of strikes and counterstrikes in the Gaza Strip in which dozens of people were killed. Palestinians celebrated after the truce was announced and on Monday, border crossings between Israel and Gaza reopened. Both sides claimed to have triumphed. All our goals were achieved, said Israel's Prime Minister Yair Lapid, who claimed that the entire military command of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or pij, had been wiped out. The leader of pij, Ziyad Al Nakhala, meanwhile, also claimed victory on pro Iranian tv. Conspicuously absent from the discussion was Hamas, the militants turned political party, often involved in conflict in the region. And whoever claims gains in this latest round of violence, it's the people of Gaza who have borne the losses.

The backstory to this started on Monday of last week when the Israeli army arrested an Islamic Jihad commander in the occupied West Bank.

Greg Karlstrom is a Middle east correspondent for the Economist.

That led to several days of concerns in Israel about possible retaliation from Islamic Jihad in Gaza. There were restrictions imposed on Israeli residents who live near the border. That retaliation never happened. But on Friday, Israel assassinated an Islamic Jihad commander in Gaza, and that was enough to start more than two days of back and forth fire across the border.

And how serious has this flare up been?

Unfortunately, there are a lot of examples to compare it to. In Gaza, of course, There have been four wars in the territory since 2008, and then a number of smaller, shorter rounds of escalation as well. This one ranks on the smaller and shorter side, but still had deadly consequences. There were 44 people killed in Gaza, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry. Two of them were Islamic Jihad commanders. The original rationale for this is real, saying it was a preemptive strike against the group. Also among the dead were 15 children, some as young as five years old. The Palestinians say they were killed by Israeli airstrikes, whereas the Israeli army says they were killed by rockets fired from Gaza that malfunctioned and landed inside of the Strip. On the Israeli side, There were about 1,000 rockets and mortars fired in two days, according to the army. Most of those either fell short and landed in Gaza or were intercepted by Iron Dome by the Israeli missile defense system. And so there were no fatalities reported on the Israeli side.

So this is primarily a conflict then with Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Tell me about that group.

They are the number two militant group in Gaza, of course. The territory has been controlled for 15 years by Hamas, which seized power in 2007 after winning a victory in Palestinian legislative elections. And they are the dominant force in Gaza. Islamic Jihad plays second fiddle. Ostensibly, there are a lot of similarities between these groups. They're both militant Islamist factions. They have their roots back in the 1980s. They were founded, of course, to fight Israel. But there are a number of differences as well, where Hamas, as essentially the sovereign in Gaza, has had to make a number of changes or compromises to its ideology over the years in order to preserve its grip on power. Islamic Jihad has not had to do that. It's outside of the governing system. It doesn't wield political power really in Gaza. It's extremely close to Iran. It receives much of its funding from Iran. And in fact, the group's leader was in Tehran last week while all of this was happening in Gaza. And so while in theory these groups work together and they have what they say is a joint operations room where they coordinate military operations against Israel, in practice, they're often competitors in Gaza. They compete for resources, for support, for men to join their military wings.

And so, with all that in mind, where is Hamas in all this? It's normally Hamas that we hear about when conflict flares up.

That was certainly the case last May when there was an 11 day war in Gaza. Whether or not Hamas gets involved is usually the deciding factor in whether these rounds of escalation only last for a couple of days, or whether they become more protracted conflicts. But Hamas as the ruling party in Gaza has a number of considerations. One is sort of foreign policy. It has been working over the past few years to build relations with Egypt, with some of the Gulf states, none of whom were particularly keen on seeing this escalate into a lengthy, protracted war. And so there was pressure on the group from outside to sit out the fighting here. There was also some pressure from within. There's public opinion that it has to consider. And it's been barely a year since the last war. Much of what was destroyed or damaged during that war has not been rebuilt. And so there is internal pressure on the group as well from the populace in Gaza, which does not want to see this escalate into another round of fighting. So it has various considerations that it has to take into account. And to some extent, it's probably not unhappy to see Islamic Jihad weakened a bit. The group differs quite often with Hamas on tactics and strategy. It can be a nuisance sometimes to the Hamas leadership because it is a bit more antagonistic or aggressive when it comes to starting rounds of fighting with Israel. And so Hamas chose to sit this one out and on some level, probably not displeased with the outcome.

So what does that tell you about Hamas and its role as a political party more than a sort of ideological force?

I think the main thing it tells you is that the group as the ruler in Gaza has to be a bit more pragmatic than it would have been 20 years ago when it was a militant group that didn't wield power. It has over the years made some rhetorical gestures in public towards the possibility of either what's called a hudna, a long term truce with Israel, which would offer not formal recognition, not a permanent promise of peace, but a lengthy promise to stop fighting in return for easing the blockade. It's also expressed some willingness in recent years towards a negotiated solution with Israel. The group's leadership has said if the Palestinian people were to agree on a two state solution using the pre1967 borders, then we would go along with that. Now, there are certainly people in Israel and elsewhere who doubt its sincerity about these things, but there is a pragmatism that has grown in Hamas over the past 15 years when it comes to these sorts of ideological questions.

And what about the view from Israel? What are the considerations there and how do you see this playing out?

There are political considerations on their side as well, of course. They're heading for an election in November, their fifth since 2019. The most recent one produced a very unwieldy, broad based power sharing government that only lasted about a year. It collapsed this spring. And so Yair Lapid, the centrist who's now the caretaker prime minister, is facing a battle for election in November against Benjamin Netanyahu, the once and perhaps future prime minister. What this means for Lapid's political fortunes, I think perhaps a bit too early to say. On the one hand, this was the first time he faced a security crisis as prime minister, and he can certainly point to this and say, we dealt with it, we ended it quickly and tried to use this as a political selling point in his favor. On the other hand, I don't think it fundamentally changes the reality of the race here, which is that it's a deeply divided electorate and this election will come down to a referendum on whether or not you want Netanyahu to come back as prime minister. So I think more likely than not, it doesn't really change a race that is focused on personalities and on economics more than security issues.

And what about the view from people who live in Gaza who go through these cycles of violence?

For people in Gaza, of course, this really means nothing beyond more suffering after 15 years of siege. The economy has collapsed in Gaza, the infrastructure has collapsed, and this has become a problem that no one wants to fix. Israel and Egypt are quite happy with the status quo. The Palestinian Authority, which governs the west bank, wants nothing to do with Gaza, and Hamas doesn't want to make the sorts of compromises that might jeopardize its grip on power. So in the short term, the ceasefire is likely to hold. No one has an interest in breaching it. But inevitably, as we've seen time and again for the past 15 years, it will not hold forever. And 2 million people living in Gaza will once again be held hostage to forces beyond their control.

Thanks very much for joining us, Greg.

Thank you.

Hi, this is Christy from Back to the Bar. You've probably heard about GLP1 weight loss medications and the side effects that can come with jumping in too fast. That's why I love Noom makes getting started easy. Their microdose GLP1 program begins with a smaller dose and gradually scales up based on how your body reacts. The Noom GLP1 microdose program starts at $99 and is delivered to your door in seven days. Start your microdose GLP1 journey today at noom.com that's n o o m.com Noom micro changes big results average weight loss 8 pounds in first month meds and personalization based on clinical need and not available to all individuals. Medications are not reviewed by FDA for safety, efficacy or quality. Pricing based on first month only.

Generation Z or Generation Zed if you prefer, is different. And I'm not just talking about their love of TikTok and all that. Compared with recent generations, the American cohort of people born between the late 1990s and early 2000s are more educated but less likely to have jobs or even be searching for work. But those who are in the workforce, or trying to be, they have demands.

What Genzi wants from employers isn't quite the same as in generations past.

Vinjeru Ngandawiri writes about business affairs for.

The Economist, and as the economy slows following a pandemic jobs boom, those wants are in flux. Gen Z graduates are asking for more flexibility, more money, and more security.

Well, let's start with the flexibility. We all like a bit of that. How are Gen Z Gen Z any different in that way?

Well, for a start, they seem to be taking advantage of the new possibilities that remote work has offered, and in ways that go beyond working in your pajamas. Many are taking calls from beach chairs and hammocks in more exciting locations where they're fleeing big cities in search for cheaper or larger homes. In Microsoft's latest Work Trend Index, which polled more than 30,000 workers in 31 countries at the start of the year, more than half of Gen Z hybrid workers said that they were relocating thanks to remote work, compared with 38% of people overall. And the option to work remotely is increasingly non negotiable for Gen Z. According to research by McKinsey, workers aged 18 to 34 are nearly 60% more willing to quit their jobs than their older peers if the choice is taken away. They're also more likely to engage with job listings that mention flexibility.

And what are the implications of that? It's not every kind of job that can give you flexible working hours or working from home.

Exactly. It's hard to work from home if you're in hospitality, for example. And it seems this greater desire for flexibility is causing industries with jobs that can't be done from home to fall out of favor with recent graduates. For example, a study that was done by a recruitment company called Manpower Group suggests that there's an inverse relationship between talent shortages and flexible working policies. It found that sectors which are either less able to offer remote work or those that have been slower to embrace it, such as construction, finance, hospitality and manufacturing, have faced some of the biggest skills gaps for all types of jobs and have had a harder time filling open positions. The same is almost certainly true for their university educated workers.

So how is that playing out among university graduates? What trends do you see there?

Well, there's already been a pre existing trend of young recruits trading Wall street for Silicon Valley. Ever since the financial crisis between 2007 and 2009, when thousands of banking jobs were axed, big tech has looked more attractive to graduates than the big banks have. That trend would have been amplified by the pandemic, especially as tech firms are offering more flexibility post Covid than the banking sector. On the whole, tech bosses are more willing than their counterparts to let employees work from home or from anywhere else, for that matter. Mark Zuckerberg, for instance, has allowed workers at Meta to work from anywhere if their role allows it. Contrast that with bank CEOs such as Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase or James Gorman of Morgan Stanley that are urging employees back to the office. That being said, there are signs that Gen Z's love affair with tech could come up against some headwinds.

What do you mean by that?

Well, after a decade of frantic hiring, tech is suddenly looking like a less secure early career bet for the ambitious graduate. Having taken a battering from nervy investors this year, companies such as Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft and Uber have slowed hiring. Twitter has revoked recently made job offers, Netflix has laid off hundreds of workers, and Elon Musk, Tesla's chief executive, announced a hiring freeze and cuts of about a tenth of Tesla staff. So far this year, more than 28,000 workers in America's tech sector have lost their jobs. And those graduates who do choose tech are likelier to pick an established firm over a sexy startup with hazier prospects.

So if tech broadly is looking hazier, what's an ambitious recent graduate to do.

Some graduates may opt instead for other high tech sectors that seem less vulnerable to economic swings. But for example, AstraZeneca and Pfizer, two of the drug makers at the forefront of the COVID 19 vaccine rollout, have proved particularly attractive. Both shot up in the rankings of Britain's most attractive employers last year, and AstraZeneca doubled its intake of high school and university graduates in 2021. The increased focus that graduates are putting on job security also boosts the appeal of the public sector in Britain. In March, there were an estimated 67,000 more public sector employees in the country than a year earlier, and applications for government jobs rose by nearly a third at the start of the pandemic.

But if graduates keep moving towards those safe government jobs, say presumably that leaves a smaller talent pool for private employers.

Exactly, and there's a lot of demand for that smaller talent pool. Despite signs of a slowing economy, labor markets remain tight. That's partly because many older professionals quit their jobs during the pandemic, while others retired early. Britain's labor force has lost more than 250,000 people since COVID 19 first struck, and America has 3.3 million fewer people working. And the statistics show that the labor market is currently very tilted in the favor of job seekers. The latest official figures there show 11.3 million job openings but only 6 million unemployed Americans. And according to the OECD, it will take at least four years for the American labor market to return to its pre pandemic employment rates.

So Gen Z has the upper hand here. I mean, how far are companies willing to go to entice young workers to keep them on board?

It seems pretty far to burnish its flexible working credentials. So Citigroup has opened a new hub in the Spanish coastal city of malaga, luring over 3,000 applicants for just 30 analyst roles. Google, in addition to providing gourmet meals, round the clock massages and nap pods, recently hired Lizzo, a pop star, to perform for staff. But it seems that despite their love of flexible working in Lizzo concerts, the best thing firms can do to attract Gen Z talent is is to cough up more money. According to Universum, some earlier Gen Z hobby horses, such as an employer's commitment to diversity and inclusion or corporate social responsibility, have edged down the list of American graduates priorities, while a competitive base salary and high future earnings have edged up to that end. Banks such as JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, and management consultancies including McKinsey and BCG have bumped first year analysts, annual pay up to 100,000 doll law firms have also been raising their starting salaries and bp, a British energy giant, offers recent graduates sign on bonuses of as much as $6,000 and discounts on cars. Money isn't everything, but apparently it is something.

Benjeru thank you very much for your time.

Thank you Jim.

This be the verse. They fuck you up, your mum and dad. They may not mean to, but they do. They fill you with the faults they had and add some extra just for you.

The world of Philip Larkin is far.

From glamorous Henry Hitchings writes about culture for the Economist.

His poems tend to chronicle mundane activities a long train journey, visiting churches, deciding whether to attend a party or perusing some old photos. And at the same time they involve intense self examination. They're approachable and melancholy and authentic and resonant. And on this, his centenary, it seems worth celebrating the unofficial laureate of humdrum Englishness. Despite his faults, Philip Larkin had an uneventful childhood in Coventry. The Second World War broke out when he was 17. He avoided wartime military service on account of his poor eyesight, studied at Oxford University, where he burnished his love of jazz and spent his adult life as a librarian. His natural habitat was English suburbia, a realm of grey dawns, hollow afternoons, heavy mortgages and low Horizons. The final 30 years of his life were dedicated to running the library at the university in Hull, a city he once had damningly described as being on the way to nowhere. Larkin's reputation rests on four slim volumes of poetry, and really on three the Less Deceived, published in 1955 the Whitsun Weddings, published in 64 High Windows, published in 74. Rather than practicing the very British, perhaps very English, habits of evasion and whimsy, his poems speak concisely and directly. At the same time, he writes frankly and devastatingly about mortality, about sadness. He describes the instantaneous grief of being alone and the way misery passed from parents to their children. He has a tendency to express himself very sparely. He zeroes in on physical details that are often bluntly, unpoetic. In one of his best poems, the Whitsun Weddings, he itemizes what he sees while traveling by train on a hot Saturday afternoon canals with floatings of industrial froth, for instance. And as he does that, he builds up to an unexpected and transcendent climax. Certain stereotypes cling to Larkin, the idea of him as relentlessly pessimistic, relentlessly gloomy. The pessimism and the gloom are definitely there, but they're only part of the story. He has other attributes. He is, quite simply very funny, and I think people often omit that from their account of him. It was apparent even when they were published. In some of his poems, there is an ugly attitude to women. But when his letters were published in 1992, which was less than seven years after his death, they exposed something different. A deep seam of misogyny and also of racism, as well as a puerility that was at odds with the earnest, delicate craftsmanship of his finest poems. There's no getting away from Larkin's faults. He was rarely a very charitable soul. Outside his verse, he could be really unpleasantly vitriolic, whether it was about his fellow poet Ted Hughes, who, he said produced not a single solitary bit of good and was a boring old monolith, or even the Bible, which he pronounced rather memorably. Absolute balls. Fundamentally, Larkin is still worth reading today, because there really aren't many English writers who have so skillfully melded the lyrical and the conversational pathos and wit. He's a writer remarkably free of illusions, and he has the strangest effect on the reader. He makes me smile and at the same time shudder. Shudder at more fully comprehending some of life's less consoling, less comfortable features and at recognizing the quintessence and mixed rewards of Englishness.

Man.

Hands on misery.

To man, it deepens like a coastal shelf. Get out as early as you can and don't have any kids yourself. That's all for this episode of the Intelligence. Let us know what you think of the show. Drop us a line@podcastseconomist.com or leave us a rating wherever you listen. We'll see you back here tomorrow.