No breakthrough on stalled Gaza deal

0:03Hello and welcome to NewsHour. It's coming to you live from the BBC World Service studios in central London. I'm Tim Franks. And the question at the start of this programme is how far in the pursuit of peace the world's most powerful country is willing to break things or at least maybe squeeze things. because today Donald Trump's son-in-law and Middle East envoy Jared Kushner has been meeting the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to try to persuade him to soften his opposition to the US-backed peace plan for Gaza. This plan was proclaimed by President Trump, you might remember, two and a bit weeks ago as a monumental step towards lasting peace and security.

0:45It claimed to have secured agreement for the complete disarmament of militant groups in Gaza. That would be accompanied by an Israeli withdrawal and a full reconstruction of the shattered enclave, where, just to remind you, more than two million Palestinians are squeezed into less than half the narrow strip, where the Israeli military continue to launch deadly strikes against what they say are terrorist targets, and where living conditions continue to be, in large part, appalling. James Smith is a doctor from the UK, currently working in the central city of Deir al-Bala. The hospitals are still received trauma-wounded patients because Israel's attacks continue throughout Gaza.

1:25We're still diagnosing and treating malnutrition in children. Patients are going without medication for prolonged periods of time. Approximately 50 % of essential medicines per the World Health Organization are at zero or critically low stock within the Ministry of Health stores at the moment. We'll get some readout on today's meeting between Mr. Kushner and Mr. Netanyahu in just a moment. But NewsHouse Paul Henley has been speaking to Ahmed Youssef, a former senior Hamas official. He was special adviser to Hamas's political leader Ismail Haniyeh before he was killed in Tehran in 2024. On Sunday, so before today's talks, Kushner and other senior officials with President Trump's Board of Peace had held rare talks with Hamas in Egypt.

2:17What did Ahmed Yusuf make of them? I think it's excellent. Actually, for the first time, they have met with a huge number of people from the Politburo of Hamas, and that's giving impression how serious are Hamas regarding open discussion or open negotiation with the Americans and getting the commitment from the American side that the Israelis will abide with whatever they will decide as outcome of this negotiation between Hamas and the Americans. What do you think will be Hamas's main demands? What do they want first and foremost? All the time, everybody tried to blame Hamas as hardening the negotiation because they were talking about the disarmament of Hamas.

3:07Hamas this time, they said that they're decommissioning weapon. But at the same time, they would like to get guarantees that there is a protection for the people inside Gaza because, you know, there were a lot of Israeli collaborators and the Israelis violating all the time the ceasefire. And they need somebody to guarantee them that when they surrender their weapons, there is going to be a protection for everybody living in Gaza yet. So once we have people like peacekeeping forces will enter in Gaza, the Egyptian forces, peace force to protect the law and order in Gaza, they make it a positive sign that everybody happy that in that time it's not Hamas to be blamed.

3:52It's supposed to be if anybody violating what has been discussed, it should be blamed. And we know all of us know that Netanyahu is the one who all the time tries to sabotage whatever has been decided between the negotiations. Can you be a bit more specific under what circumstances would Hamas disarm fully? If there is international forces, peace force, entering to Gaza and giving protection that Netanyahu is not continuing his series of massive killing in Gaza. Needs somebody like the United States to tell them that, OK, we will give our words and no more genocide, no more violating the ceasefire and no more drones dropping bombs on the camps or anything like.

4:47They need somebody to give them this kind of assurances. You'll be aware that the Israeli government says it will not withdraw from current lines in Gaza until Hamas is completely disarmed. If Israeli forces were still inside Gaza, but international peacekeeping forces were there too, keeping everything in line, keeping agreements in line, just to be clear, Hamas would disarm, would it, under those circumstances? No, but still, when they were negotiating things that Israeli withdrew from Gaza, because I don't think Gaza will have stability and security on 25 percent of the land for like two million people living in this displacement.

5:33I'm sure that things can go simultaneously, disarming Hamas and at the same time with the drawing Israeli from the rest of Gaza. And this gives confidence for both sides, Jan, that the ceasefire should be respected from both sides. That's what will happen in the near future. There's supposed to be a peace agreement in force in Gaza now. What do you think of it? That's fine. That's fine. It's going to be something like this will take place. I think most of the people here in Gaza, they will agree and appreciate whoever trying to help both sides to ending the war. But the war is not finished yet.

6:13You're clear about that? I'm sure, because every day there's Israeli dropping bombs, killing, attacking, targeting different kind of peoples. And nobody here in the camps believes that the war has been stopped any time. There is clearly a problem of deep mistrust on both sides. What reassurances could you give the Israelis and the international community that Hamas had laid down its arms once it had said it had done so? We are the weakened one on the equation, and the Israelis, actually, they have all kinds of weapons and the capabilities to attack Gaza, and they have all the high-tech weapons that they are dominating all the Gaza airspace.

6:59So I don't think we are the one who should be dismantled or disciplined. Israelis also should be disciplined. And actually, everybody have the sense that Netanyahu will change his tactics. And we know that because the election in a couple of months in Israel, Netanyahu will continue attacking the Palestinians and killing them to convince the Israelis that he is the one who should be voted for. So you don't have much optimism about the talks happening today? I hope to keep my finger crossed, actually, and think that the people really, they are from my side, our side, the people are very serious about stopping the war and stopping the killing and showing the Palestinians in the camps.

7:46There is a chance for peace and truth. And for that, Hamas will do everything. But we need the guarantees from the Israeli side. and the only one who may be having the guarantees or can give the guarantees if there is a peaceful force here in Gaza and also the Americans. The former senior Hamas official, Ahmed Youssef, speaking to my news, our colleague, Paul Henley. Anshul Pfeffer is Israel correspondent at The Economist, one of the best connected journalists in Israel. We didn't get much in terms of formal readout from this meeting between Kushner and Netanyahu, but just over an hour ago, Jared Kushner did comment to Fox News that it had been a very, very good meeting, as he put it, and that Mr Netanyahu, who's previously rejected this proposal, had valid concerns.

8:32What does Anshul make of all that? Well, I think the most interesting thing about this meeting is that it took over four hours, which is long, I think, by any standard, and there are few people who could force Netanyahu to hold the meeting for four hours other than Donald Trump's son-in-law and envoy. And it also shows us how important it is for Trump to present something which is not an Israeli rejection. And we didn't hear an Israeli rejection today. Obviously, Netanyahu rejected the agreement last week. And he took his time, took about nine days, I think, from Trump's announcement. So we've got a situation here where Netanyahu, on the one hand, doesn't want to anger his far-right political partners and voters.

9:21by accepting this. On the other hand, he doesn't want to anger Donald Trump. So basically, they've found ways to say, well, Israel's got legitimate concerns, but it doesn't sound like a rejection at this point. But it's, I mean, to people viewing this from outside Israel, they might think that it's slightly odd that, in a sense, and this is, you know, putting the destruction of Gaza to one side for the time being, and also, obviously, the massive security failures that led to the October 7th massacres to one side as well. But that in terms of Benjamin Netanyahu being able to say, look, I've got the Americans to persuade Hamas to accept total disarmament.

10:10And at that point, we will pull back from Gaza. He could take that as a win, but the atmosphere in Israel is not conducive to him doing so. Well, Netanyahu didn't say Israel will withdraw from Gaza. He said, we made it clear to the Americans and the Americans have accepted and the Board of Peace have accepted that we will only withdraw once Hamas totally disarms. And he's hinting here that he doesn't believe for a second that Hamas will totally disarm. So as far as Netanyahu is concerned, he gets his message to the domestic audience that actually I haven't given anything here and this is all dependent on Hamas.

10:48It allows Donald Trump's administration to show that they're making progress because actually Israel isn't rejecting it. Hamas is accepting it. And Hamas can also play their political gestures to their audience and say, well, we've insisted that Israel will first of all withdraw before we disarm. And there's so many things that we still don't know for certain here. What is the sequence between an Israeli withdrawal and Hamas' disarmament? Who actually goes first? Who has to finish disarming or withdrawing first? That is still something which hasn't been agreed upon because we don't have a timetable.

11:24It's not quite clear yet what exact disarmament means. Does it mean destruction of Hamas's weapons, or does it just mean that they put it in some warehouse where another Palestinian organization holds the key? I mean, there's so many still stumbling blocks here for this agreement. At what point will any type of reconstruction begin in Gaza? Daniel's made a point that only after disarmament will there be reconstruction. The Board of Peace have been saying something different. And just very briefly, you said that Mr. Netanyahu is obviously keen to make the pitch to his hard right partners in government.

12:04He's got elections in a couple of months. Are there any serious political parties in Israel making the point that actually there does need to be a new approach on Gaza? well currently Israelis are still voting on the basis of what happened as you mentioned before on October 7th so there is no political advantage in Israel to say well we will accept a different approach and agree to some kind of some kind of deal with Hamas even Netanyahu is making in this show of being very tough in the negotiations and the opposition is saying well you're not tough enough. And that was Angel Pfeffer, Israel correspondent of The Economist.

12:46You're listening to NewsHour from the BBC.

12:59Coming up on the programme, the trials opened in Las Vegas of the only man ever charged with the murder of the American rapper Tupac Shakur, nearly 30 years after he was gunned down in a drive-by shooting. We'll get the latest from Las Vegas and hear from Tupac's brother. The justice I would like, I will never get. I want my brother back, period, dot. I want my little brother back. The amount of pain, distress, heartache that the family has gone through and Pax fans have gone through, it's unmatched. More on that in about 15 minutes. Our main headline from the BBC newsroom this hour, as we've just been hearing lengthy talks between President Trump's envoy, Jared Kushner, and the Israeli Prime Minister have, it seems, failed to achieve a big breakthrough on the Gaza peace proposals.

14:00You're with NewsHour. It's coming to you live from the BBC World Service in London. I'm Tim Franks. Meta has been hit with successive losses in court over how its platforms have targeted and harmed young users but a jury trial set to begin on Tuesday may pose the biggest threat yet to its operations The trial stems from a lawsuit filed three years ago by 30 US states including California and New York in which they claim numerous violations of federal and state privacy laws for children The states are demanding big changes to the way Instagram and Facebook operate, and they're also demanding more than a trillion, that is, one trillion dollars in damages from Meta.

14:44Well, the case of the prosecution is being led by the Attorney General for California, Rob Bonta, who joins us now. Mr Bonta, thank you very much indeed for your time here on News Air. May I ask what you are demanding that Meta does? yes we want them to stop harming our kids knowingly they designed a dangerous product it was something they knew was dangerous and they lied to the public about it so we want them to end those practices stop visiting harm upon our kids they're the features that they have including infinite scroll and autoplay and beeps and alerts and likes and ephemeral content hurt kids they They create anxiety, depression, body image issues, learning loss, addictive tendencies.

15:30And as a father and the attorney general for the largest state in the nation, I want to protect our kids. So this is something that Meta is doing. It's also an industry-wide issue that we want addressed industry-wide. And we also want them to pay consistent with the law for the harm that they've done in the form of civil penalties, restitution and disgorgement. the over one trillion dollar number that you mentioned is meta's number that's not our number the judge will decide what the ultimate appropriate penalty will be it's likely to be much less than over a trillion dollars i think they're inflating that to make some arguments in the court of public opinion but it will be significant and we do want those penalties and you know that restitution and that disgorgement well i apologize that i um suggested that it was you who well i didn't suggest I said it was you who were chasing more than a trillion dollars in in damages I mean because obviously Meta itself is is only worth I say only worth one and a half trillion dollars just in terms of the substantive case though and and you know let's put the damages to one side I mean you yes you've come up with a litany of of things which you say you'd harm children are addictive.

16:43You listed some of those features. I mean, Meta, we did ask them for an interview, they didn't want to give us one, but they did give us a statement saying that basically, you know, these claims that these features are as pernicious as you say, are, I mean, essentially, well, their word, unsubstantiated. They say that, you know, these features are benign features and you've got no proof that they actually harm the residents of the state that you are attorney general of? Well, beg to differ. And, you know, this is why they need to be held accountable. They've been, you know, it's a pretty bold position, minimalist and reductionist in its approach to, given that they've been losing massively in court up to now, and we believe they will lose here again.

17:34We do have evidence. We're ready to have those witnesses testify in trial and present our evidence in trial. And the most damning part of it is they knew that these features hurt children. They knew internally through their own internal studies. They reviewed those studies. They knew that their products were dangerous and they doubled down on them and they advanced them and visited them upon our kids anyway. And they lied about it to the public, including lies from Mr. Zuckerberg himself to Congress and other higher ups in the executive team at Meta when they lied to Congress and otherwise to the public.

18:10So the denialism is disappointing, but not surprising. And we like to be in court where facts and law are all that matters. We're ready to present our facts, present our evidence, and we're confident in our case as we go to trial tomorrow. And just to be clear about this sort of further charge, and you're not the first to make it, which is that, you know, Meta knew that this was a dangerous product. and they actively pursued it. You think you've got proof of that? Oh, yeah. I think that's undisputed. Well, you say it's undisputed. I'm sure they will dispute it. And that's why I ask if you've got proof of it.

18:44We do. And they can't dispute their own studies, their own internal documents. We have those studies. We have those documents. We have that evidence. We have that documentation. We're ready to present it. If that's their position, I'm even more confident after hearing that going into this trial because we have the evidence and that is a core part of our case. Okay. And just in terms of the evidence that you say that you've got about the harm that these products produce, particularly on kids. I mean, I guess, again, you know, I think it's beyond anybody's doubt that social media can be abused and that, you know, there are ways in which it can be very dangerous and damaging.

19:31But I just wonder if there's sort of the parallel that many people are drawing with, you know, this is the big tobacco moment. I mean, the thing about tobacco is that it is medically proven that smoking tobacco causes identifiable harm to lungs and, you know, the rest of the body. Proving a mental health crisis as a result of some of these features, that's trickery, isn't it? Perhaps, but, you know, there's physical health and there's mental health, they're both health. And they are, you know, doctors, professionals opine on the harms to physical health and mental health. And so maybe I'll push back a little bit on the distinction you're drawing between physical health and mental health.

20:12And it's not, and forgive me, it's not for me to suggest that mental health is not important, but I'm just, I guess, you know, Meta could reasonably argue that a crisis in children's mental health may be real, but it should not be placed entirely at their door? Well, let me go back to the original question you were asking about internal studies, and I'll merge this question into it, because their own studies show that mental health harms to kids, including the following example, where there's a beauty filter feature that Meta uses to mimic the effects of plastic surgery. And so they wanted to deploy that feature.

20:53There were red flags internally raised because the studies that they had internally showed that this beauty filter would have an adverse impact, especially on girls, but on kids generally. And they were suggesting that they don't deploy this feature. But Mr. Zuckerberg himself, after reviewing the harmful impacts to girls and kids, greenlit the feature. And so that is a prime example of how they knew the mental health harms they would be visiting on kids. And they did it anyway. And they doubled down on it, even though there were some internally who were cautioning against using this harmful feature.

21:32So I don't think there's a lot of doubt about the anxiety, the depression, the mental health harms. That is not necessarily disputed. Is Metta the only cause of those harms? Of course, there's other causes for mental health harms for kids. But I think it's relatively undisputed that meta and social media generally with these features that we are highlighting here in our case are causes of those harms. Just briefly, if you would, I mean, I assume this is it's a jury trial, so it can't go on forever. But I mean, I assume this is going to be a pretty weighty, lengthy trial. How much of your time is this going to take up?

22:15This is a seven-week trial. And fortunately for me, I have a great team of the biggest state DOJ in the nation. And that I'm not alone. We're working side by side with other states, the states of Colorado, Kentucky, New Jersey. We are teaming up with our resources. So it's a seven-week federal trial and we're ready to go. OK, well, Rob Bonta, we really appreciate your time. Thank you very much for joining us. Rob Bonta, Attorney General for California. There is more about this on our website, bbc.com forward slash news. And obviously it's a story we will be covering very closely over the next several weeks.

22:50You're listening to NewsHour from the BBC.

23:00Welcome back to NewsHour. With uncertainty still hanging over the jobs market in many countries, some workers are deciding it's safer to stay put rather than make their next career move. It's a phenomenon known apparently as job hugging. Michala Sripatma has been finding out who's doing it and why. I'm on my way to an art studio in London to meet an artist I'll call Rachel. It's not her real name, but her story certainly is. until very recently she worked somewhere very different. She was an architect. But after staying in a job for a long time that she didn't really like, she finally decided to take the plunge and leave.

23:41That instinct now has a name. It's called job hugging. I'm a mum. I needed a job. I couldn't risk it and I didn't know what was waiting for me if I quit. But I was holding on to it because of all the memories, because I kept thinking he could change and because I needed a job, of course. In many ways, it's the opposite of what we saw during the pandemic when workers quit jobs in record numbers in search of better pay or greater flexibility. Some employers say it comes at a cost. Jean Marks is a small business owner and columnist based in the United States. So they are going to be doing at least their bare minimum to make sure that they are keeping their jobs.

24:29They're going to shy away from doing things that are innovative or creative or risk-taking. I'm thinking particularly of one client of mine that I was just out to see this week. So they're a manufacturer. They have a salesperson working for them who has been working for them for like 20 years. That guy clocks in at 8.59 every morning and leaves at 4.59 every day. But you know what? He generates his numbers. And although that employer in particular looks at that salesperson and says, could we be getting somebody more productive? We've had that conversation 100 times over the past 10 years. And each time we come to the conclusion that, you know, it's not worth it.

25:07He's doing good enough. So he may be a job hugger, but he is a pretty good example of at least he's taking care of what he needs to take care of. So is job hugging simply a sensible response to uncertain economic times? or does it tell us something about how attitudes to work are changing? Jimmy McLaughlin hosts the podcast Jimmy's Jobs of the Future and is a former advisor to the UK government. So I think the first thing you have to do is that you have to go out and see people for coffee. You need to kind of get out there and I think also one of the big trends is how you're kind of building your personal brand within your industry.

25:44Just keeping yourself in people's minds. For Rachel, taking that leap meant leaving architecture behind and starting again as an artist. Thanks, Scott. I have a lovely partner who encouraged me and kept asking me, what are you doing? You don't need this. For many others, the choice is less clear cut. Stay with the security of the job you know or risk the uncertainty of something new. That was Vishana Sri Padma. You can hear more about job hugging. I'd never heard of it either at bbc.com or by searching for Business Daily wherever you get your podcasts

26:29This is News Hour live from the BBC I'm Tim Franks I was talking to Rob Bonta the California Attorney General about a very big trial and the offing starting tomorrow but one of the biggest trials of the year, well, that has got underway in the US today. And it's certainly one of the most belated. It was almost 30 years ago that the rapper Tupac Shakur was gunned down in Las Vegas, killed in a drive-by shooting. Today, the only man ever charged in connection with the murder has gone on trial, Dwayne Kefidi Davis, a self-described former gang leader. In a moment, we'll hear from outside the courtroom.

27:10But first, the BBC's West Coast correspondent, Shai Mikhalil, has this preview. In 1996, Tupac Shakur was everywhere. California Love was an anthem. All Eyes on Me was selling millions, and he was starring in films. At 25, Tupac was at the height of his career. At 25, he was gunned down. Because everybody still wants to know what happened. There's been no movement in 30 years, which is wild to me. I sat with Tupac's older brother, Moprim Shakur, who described receiving the news that his brother had been shot in Las Vegas. I know it's a long time ago, but what do you remember thinking? Worry. I was just worried how bad it was.

27:50All I had known, he got shot. So until I reached Vegas, I didn't know the status of things. And Pac was a tough little dude. He had already survived being shot five times. And I was just praying that it wasn't as worse as it was. He had already survived one near-fatal shooting, but he couldn't survive a second. Rap star Tupac Shakur died last night after a brief life in a rough business. He was 25. Tupac's murder has long been associated with the bitter East Coast-West Coast rap feud, but prosecutors say the shooting grew out of a confrontation involving rival Compton gangs. Nearly 30 years on, Dwayne Keefe D.