Global News Podcast: Gaza Special: Your Questions Answered

Hello, this is the Global News podcast from the BBC World Service with reports and analysis

from across the world. The latest news seven days a week. BBC World Service podcasts are

supported by advertising.

At Staple's Business Advantage, our experts can help you find furniture that fits any design

and budget. While AI can recommend products based on preferences, generate 3D models for

visualization and optimize space planning for office furniture. Take advantage of our team's

eye for style and design. And my eye for weight. I have no eyes. Only algorithms. At Staple's

Business Advantage, furnishing your office is easy. And with the best warranty in the business,

we're committed to you now and down the road. Sign up today and save 20%. Staple's Business Advantage.

Business is human.

This is a Global News podcast special edition from the BBC World Service.

I'm Jackie Leonard and in this edition, recorded at 17.30 GMT on Friday, the 13th of October,

we'll be answering your questions about the Israeli Gaza crisis. A week on from the Hamas

attack on Israel, we've teamed up with the new BBC podcast, The Conflict, and are joined from

Israel by its host, our chief international correspondent, Lee's Doucet, who is in Ash

Dodd, north of Gaza. Also with us is our international editor, Jeremy Bowen, who's in

Jerusalem. We'll be hearing too from the BBC security correspondent, Frank Gardner.

We had planned to talk to our colleagues in Gaza, but our apologies for now is just too dangerous.

Let's cross to Israel. We have a great deal to discuss about the events in the Middle East,

how we got here, how events are unfolding on the ground, how the international community is

responding, and how any sort of peaceful outcome might be achieved. It's clear from your questions

that you'd like us to start with a little bit of geography and a bit of history, so Lee's welcome,

a relatively easy one to kick off with. Can you give us a sense of the size and location of Gaza,

where it is in relation to Israel, who lives there, who's in charge, and who its neighbours are?

Well, the Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the Mediterranean. The southern side,

it's connecting to Egypt, and then its other neighbour is Israel. It is described as one of

the most densely populated places on earth. Some 2.3 million Palestinians live there,

and they live with great frustration because they feel they don't really have control over their

lives. Even though Israel pulled out its troops in 2005, it controls the airspace, it controls the

sea, it also controls all of the land crossings into Gaza, except the one which goes to Egypt,

which is called the Rafa crossing. We've tried to use various measures to say how big it is for

people who live in North America. It's about the size of Washington DC. Okay, so that was the

geography part. To the more complicated part now, what is behind this conflict? Let's hear from a

listener. Sydney from Albany, New York. I know very little about the history of the conflict

between the two sides. I always grew up believing it had to do with religious differences. I'm 24

years old and was never led to believe anything different. I want to learn more about the history

of the conflict because I don't remember learning about it in school, and I want to be correctly

And this one. Hi, this is Lili from Germany. I was wondering how was the state of Israel

founded? How did that impact local people in what was formerly Palestine? Why did the following

force break out? And what is life for people on their occupation in the West Bank like?

So Jeremy, the problem here is how far back do we go? Can you attempt a potted history for us?

So I'll try it in the next minute or so. At the first part of the question, when did the conflict

start? Well, I suppose you have to go back to the Zionist movement in Europe, where in 1897

they had a Congress and they decided, among other things, that they would push to get a Jewish state

within 50 years. In fact, they got one in 51 years in 1948. And there was, even by 1897, there was

settlement by Jews who were known as Zionists. It's a Jewish nationalism, if you like. It was a

period of nationalism in Europe. The Czechs wanted a homeland. The Hungarians wanted independence.

And Jews were thinking, well, let's get a nation state as well. And they decided they wanted to

have one here in Palestine. But there was a famous historian, Avis Schleinke, found this

great quote, some rabbis who came out here after that first Zionist conference. They telegraphed

back to Europe and said, the bride is beautiful, but she's already married. In other words, there

were people here. One of the old sayings about Israel was it was a land without a people for a

people without a land. But that wasn't true because they were Palestinian Arabs here. And

when the Zionists were coming in to start with, there was a bit of cooperation. But increasingly,

there was conflict. And I think asking where this conflict came from, I think it started off

with two peoples having very strong claims to the land in their own minds and not being able to agree

how to split it and how to share it. Now, the British were in charge here between the World

Wars effectively. They left in 1948. And they did have a plan to try to split the land into two

states. But it was one which the Arabs particularly would not accept. They wanted everything. I think

that the Jews at that time were more of a subtle approach. And while they weren't getting what they

wanted, they thought we'll take a bit and maybe we'll have something extra. So 1948, Israel's War

of Independence, they won a massive victory. But since then, it has had a very troubled history.

And one of the questions was about religious differences. Well, you know, in the time that

I've been here as a journalist, reporting from here for more than 30 years, the conflict has

got more religious. Now, there are people on both sides who believe they are doing the will of God.

And those people were always existed. But now they're in really powerful positions.

Well, the latest stage in the crisis started with the unprecedented attacks on Israel by Hamas,

which seemed to come as a complete surprise. We'll talk about the why now shortly. But first,

let's have another one of your questions. This is Katie. I live in New York.

I want to know what life was or is like in Palestine. And is it those harsh conditions that

led to this breaking point? Or did Hamas just do this because they want to eradicate Jewish people

from the earth? And they're just using this claim of oppression as an excuse to kill Jewish people.

So, Lees, would you like to take this one?

Well, I'll just pick up on what Jeremy said is that the longer this conflict goes on,

it does acquire more and more of a religious dimension. But, you know, Muslims against the

Jews and the Jewish people feel very profoundly threatened by the attacks that Hamas carried

out on Saturday. It has gone right round the world for in Jewish communities. But I think

predominantly this is an issue about, yes, the very difficult impoverished conditions in Gaza,

the conditions in the occupied West Bank, the fact that Israel continues to exercise control over

people's lives, the fact that the hopes of the Palestinians... Just sorry, just to interrupt

you there, Lees. We were hearing some sirens there and it sounded like some explosions. Can you

tell us what's going on? Well, that's the thud of artillery. We're very close to the Gaza border,

so that's outgoing. In the night, there's a lot of intense aerial bombardment. It goes on

around the clock for Gazans. It is in the distance. I'm afraid it is a sound that we hear all day,

even here in southern Israel. Artillery going out, drones in the sky, helicopter gunships.

We hear the thud of some of that bombardment in Gaza. We only see, for the most part, hear the

sound and right here we can't see what's happening on the ground. Frightening moment. It is frightening.

Are you okay to continue? Yes, of course. You are okay. Okay, that's great. Not for us, for the

people under them, for the people under them. It is. So, I was saying one of the most controversial

issues between the Israelis and Palestinians is the expansion of Jewish settlements. And in the

past many months, with Benjamin Netanyahu remaining in power and now governing with the most right-wing

government in Israel's history, it is very pro-settler. And there's been, for most of this year,

more and more clashes. The siren is going off, but I think we're fine. We can continue. And I think

maybe it's good for our listeners to know that this is the reality of life. There's been a lot

of clashes between the settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank, so much so that it was regarded

as Israel's more focused on the West Bank than they were on Gaza. But there are many reasons

for this. And they are very profound. They're very emotional. They're historical and very personal

and political. Right. Let's have another clip from one of our listeners. Given the Israeli response

to the Hamas attacks seemingly resulting in collective punishment towards the Palestinians,

I'm curious as to what the average Palestinian civilian sentiment is towards Hamas. Is this

an organization that is largely supported? And that one's for you, Jeremy. Well, there have

been any polls in the last week, because I think that for a lot of Palestinians, and ones I've

spoken to, horror and incredulity about what has been happening, about the numbers of people

that will kill, I think people had no idea that this was coming. So there's that.

Now, before all this happened, Hamas took over in Gaza in 2007, quite violently. They kicked out

the other faction, Fateh. They were a daggers drawn, literally in some cases. They had won an

election the previous year, so they were popular then. And a lot of that was a protest vote against

the ineptitude and the corruption of the other Palestinian main group, Fateh, and the fact that

they hadn't delivered their objective of a Palestinian statement. To start with, some people

thought Palestinians were quite a breath of fresh air, but things have changed, became more

authoritarian, and they haven't been so popular in Gaza and also here in the West Bank. Yes, of

course, they have their followers, some very, very dedicated followers, often people who are

religious. But you cannot say that the Palestinian national movement, those people who want to have

their own state, which is virtually every Palestinian I've ever met, that they are co-extensive

with Hamas, because that's not the case, far from it. And so Hamas were not

ragingly popular group. And I don't think this is necessarily going to make them any more popular,

but what will happen, because what is already happening, because of the number of deaths of

Palestinian civilians, particularly, is there will be a feeling that Palestinians and others

in the Arab world, we've seen a lot of demonstrations today, will be angry about what was happening,

and angry at Israel, because of the way that they are attacking Gaza. Well, turning to current

Israeli politics now, let's get a bit more context. Chris Hochman from Texas, but originally from

Australia. How much of a factor is the settlements in this situation? How has this changed Israeli

policy, given that to get support from the right Netanyahu had shifted to a more anti-Palestinian

policy? What's Iran's role in all of this? Please take that one. Well, I mentioned one of the

primary reasons for the increasing anger of Palestinians, including Hamas, against Israel,

is the rise and rise expansion of Jewish settlements. Jewish settlements was one of the

issues that was postponed in the Oslo Peace Accords of 30 years ago, and many now realize that was a

huge mistake. They thought they would be able to deal with it. Israel has given back some of the

control of the occupied West Bank, but there are large swathes which are under Israeli control,

and the settlements continue to expand. And also the Israeli settlers now feel emboldened by the

right-wing government, which has many pro-settler politicians inside Prime Minister Netanyahu's

cabinet, at least the cabinet he had before he formed the war cabinet. Well, yes, it is a major

issue. On Iran, this has been asked many times. Iran is one of the main backers of Hamas and Islamic

jihad. It both helps to arm and finance both groups. But in this particular crisis, the United

States and Israel have both said that there is no intelligence to suggest that Iran was part

of the planning and the execution of this assault by Hamas. Okay, so Frank Gardner,

our security correspondent, is here. Let's take a question that we got from one of our listeners

on intelligence. I'm Alan C. from the Philippines. With vast resources at its disposal,

how could Israel have failed to foresee the attack by Hamas? Is this failure of intelligence

really attributable to Israel's current political climate? Well, Alan, this is exactly the question

that a lot of Israelis are asking of their government. And it is a failure of intelligence.

It's also a failure of imagination. So there was always known to be a threat coming from Hamas

in Gaza. But Israel had spent about a billion dollars building what it called its iron wall. It

relied a lot on technology. That meant it thinned out a lot of the forces it had on that border.

It didn't think Hamas was going to attack from there. Plus, it happened on a holiday. And yes,

your right to some extent, the Israeli government has been distracted by a lot of the political

turmoil. That plus the fact that most of the violence in recent months has been in the West Bank,

not in Gaza. Alan also wanted to know if it would be in Iran's interest to stoke conflict all over

the Middle East. Well, Iran has denied any role in this attack, but has applauded it. Hamas is an

ally of Iran. It's funded, trained, equipped, armed by Iran. And I think it's fair to say that there

was some nervousness in Iran and in Hamas that Saudi Arabia was about to conclude a deal with

Israel that would see the two countries normalizing their relations. That deal is now temporarily,

at least for the time being, off the table. So Iran has definitely an interest in supporting Hamas.

And it has been accused by Western governments and Israel of fermenting trouble in the Middle East,

fermenting violence and channeling weapons to not just Hamas, but also to Hezbollah,

which is why Israel has been bombing airports in the last few days in Syria to try and interrupt

that weapons flow from Iran. And quite a lot of people were also wondering about what they see

as the apparent international bias in support of Israel. Hello, I'm Andrei. I'm from Poland.

Why are most of the people, also world leaders, expressing support for Israel and accepting

their military response? From what I understand, it is the Israel that is a longtime aggressor

and an occupant of the Palestinian territory. Shouldn't more support and understanding be

given to the Palestinian people? I don't support violence in any way and would prefer a peaceful

solution, but it is not that Hamas is attacking Israel without reason. With all the news about

Israeli violence and the settlers in recent months, I find it understandable that they see it as an

only way to fight further freedom. Right, Andrei. So this attack was unprecedented in the ferocity

and barbarism and absolutely disgusting sadism of killing children in cold blood. Now, yes,

it's horrific what's happening in Gaza. Of course, it is. And it's deeply unfair, the treatment of

the Palestinians, that their land has been continually encroached upon by settlement

after settlement. And that, of course, has led to this frustration. But nothing excuses the total

barbarity, the ISIS level of savagery that was committed on the morning of Saturday, October

the 7th, the chasing down and gunning down in cold blood of young people as they went to a music

festival, the murdering of grandmothers in their beds. This has shocked not just Israelis, but the

whole world. That's why for the time being, the kind of moral compass of outrage has tended to be

on the side of Israel. That I think will probably change as more and more suffering is experienced

by the people of Gaza as Israel pummeled that narrow coastal strip. Some are wondering about

what the views are more specifically in the Middle East region. Hi, my name is Matthew and I'm from

New York. I'm curious how neighboring Muslim countries view Hamas and more specifically

the Palestinian people. What is Egypt's, Jordan's, Lebanon's or Syria's official stance on Hamas?

Are there unofficial perspectives you could discuss? As ever in the Middle East, there is a

difference between the official stance of governments, which is nearly always in support of the Palestinian

cause and what the leaders of those governments actually think in practice. Most of them don't

like Hamas. Qatar does. Qatar provides a base for Hamas's political leadership, but most certainly

the Sunni conservative Arab governments of Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, the United

Emirates and Bahrain, they don't particularly like Hamas because it is what's called political

Islam. It believes that religion should have a role in government and they see that as a threat to

their way of ruling. But the conflict that's raging now is so huge with such high casualties

that they feel obliged those governments to all come out and support most cases the Palestinian

cause. And there's been a rare joint statement by Saudi Arabia and Iran supporting the Palestinian

cause. And are there countries in the region sympathetic enough and able to take in refugees

from Gaza? Well, the big question here is, will Egypt do it? Because there's enormous pressure

from the United States, from Israel, from other countries on Egypt to open its very tiny border

at Rafa between Egypt, the north of the Egyptian Sinai, with the south end of the Gaza Strip.

Now, Gazans don't particularly want to leave their country. I mean, you know, this is traumatic for

them. Many of them, they are descendants of people who were kicked out of their homes back in 1948.

So they don't want to have another what's called Nakhbar in Arabic catastrophe. Egypt certainly

doesn't want to host tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees because they

don't think it would be a temporary thing while Israel clears out Hamas. They think with some

justification, it'll end up being a permanent refugee camp in the north of the Sinai. So no,

there's no appetite in the Middle East for hosting more Palestinian refugees. What everyone would

rather see is an equitable solution. And I'm going to end with this. This conflict is going to go on

and on in a vicious cycle, regardless of Israel's military actions, until Palestinians are ruled

governed by people who don't seek the destruction of the state of Israel. And Israel stops building

settlements on Arab land, on Palestinian land that deprives them of a future contiguous homeland.

That's the bottom line. Now, when we talk about what's going on, people are, of course, really

sensitive to the language used by media organizations. Here in the BBC, we have specific guidelines

related to our use of words like militant and terror. Jeremy, can you just very briefly talk us through

those? Well, the big controversial one is whether or not at the BBC we should refer to Hamas as

terrorists. I've been listening closely to the way that newsreaders have been framing it in

intros and to the reports that we've been doing. And the form of words they've been using is that

Hamas, which is being classified as a terrorist organization by many governments in the West,

including the United Kingdom, at the BBC, we don't say, well, they're terrorists or they're not

terrorists. Why is that? It's because it's a very loaded word. Some people say that the

definitions are very simple, but they're not. And what we're after is clarity. So the way I approach

it is that I try and describe what's happened and what they stand for and what they're trying to do.

Give you another example. There are plenty of people, plenty of people not very far from where

I'm in Jerusalem or in the West Bank, who would say that Israel, repeatedly over many years,

has been guilty of state terrorism as far as the Palestinians and other countries

their neighbours are concerned. Now, I don't call them a state terrorist and we don't get into that

business of using this word because it's so controversial. I can even feel now supporters

of Israel bridling that I even mentioned that. I'm not trying to make comparisons. This is not

about comparisons. It's about clarity. So what I try and do in my writing and my reporting is I try

and describe what's going on. And for the record, I'd say that Hamas carried out an absolutely

murderous attack against innocent civilians. And the massive shock of that is having a profound

effect, not just on the fact that Israel has been dealt an act of war and is responding.

It's also completely upset what people believed was the status quo. And now in the Middle East,

they are into a terrible new period of uncertainty because what happens the day after Israel finishes

its military operation? What kind of governance will be left there? That's the kind of things we

want to look at. But instead, people who oppose what we do in London are very critical of the BBC

have been using this as a reason to have a go at us. And I think that actually what we're after

is accuracy. Well, listeners do care about language. Let's hear from a couple more.

My name is Keith Schlesinger from Corvallis, Oregon, USA. And my question is, why have

all the news outlets in the West uniformly use the term hostages to refer to those who have been

captured by the Hamas and Islamic Jihad forces? Why doesn't the BBC refer to these captured

people as prisoners of war? Please, that one's for you. Yes, and language is very important,

but also respect for the conventions of war. We, I think both Jeremy and I continue to mention

in our coverage that targeting civilians in a time of war is a war crime. And the convention

is also very clear on who are prisoners of war. And I'm going to read from the convention because

I want this to be very clear. It says that members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict,

as well as members of militia or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. In other words,

prisoners of war usually refers to those who have taken up arms. But there is an exception,

and I will read it so we're absolutely clear. Any other non-combatants or civilians affiliated with

but not part of a diligent military, such as reporters and contractors, have the right to

be treated as a prisoner of war. So you can request if you're part of an armed force, but you're not

actually fighting, you're affiliated in some way, you could ask for that. That obviously doesn't apply

in this case. These were innocent civilians from 18 month old babies to 80 year old Holocaust

survivors. These are innocent civilians. And what about the siege warfare question?

Siege. Well, Jeremy and I both covered Syria, where a siege, laying siege to entire villages

and parts of big cities, was one of the most powerful weapons of war used by President Assad's

forces. Yes, it is a medieval term, but such is the finality of war in our time, the mercilessness

of war in our time that starving fighters into submission was used in Syria. The siege is also

being used here in Gaza. That is the word that Israel used because they've made it clear they're

not going to turn on the water or allow food or fuel in, turn on the switch on the electricity

until all the hostages are returned. This is a war crime. It is targeting civilians in a time of war.

And yes, it is as brutal as the medieval sieges of old. And reporting on something like this,

on a crisis like this, it's very difficult, isn't it, to be accurate, to be sure that the

information that you are receiving is true. We've had some questions about how we verify information.

So Jeremy, how do you do that? Well, in terms of the numbers of people who've been killed or

wounded, I think sometimes it is an approximation and it still is at the moment in terms of those

who were killed in that Hamas attack because, frankly, they're still finding bodies. They don't

really know. In terms of verifying things like those videos you see, I mean, one thing that's

really changed reporting since the advent of the smartphone is the fact that so much videos around.

So, you know, we try and prove things. We don't just stick them out there.

And we hear a lot about just how intractable a conflict this is. And of course, our listeners

have questions about how to resolve it. First, there was this suggestion about a short-term solution.

Hi, this is Sam Oppenheim, a New York City public school teacher. And my question is, would Israel

consider a humanitarian corridor and a temporary ceasefire that could allow women and children

out of Gaza, for example, into Egypt or an army camp or all the way to the West Bank?

I understand that the Israeli military is looking for a military solution, but in all the interviews

that you've posted on the BBC podcast, they claim to value civilian lives of innocent,

non-Hamas actors. So, could Israel put weight behind those statements?

Please.

This one is under huge pressure now. Most of all, pressure from its own people

after these atrocities committed by Hamas. There is deep, deep anger and fear in this society,

and a very strong feeling of the need to retaliate, to use their phrase to crush Hamas.

But there is also pressure on Israel from its closest of allies, including the United States,

to use the phrase used by the U.S. How you respond matters as well, that there are rules

even in war. And one of the most important rules is not targeting civilians. That is a war crime.

So Israel seems to be, I mean, listening to that. There's also discussions with Egypt

about trying to keep that crossing open. But Egypt has its own concerns. It doesn't want a huge influx

of Palestinians onto its territory. And there's the graph crossing. It can't move people quickly

enough through it. Israel does not want to be delayed. It's not in a mood to compromise in any way.

The clock for its military operations matters more than the clock on the time it would take to

open a humanitarian corridor. There's not even a window, much less a corridor now. And I think

we'll see in the days to come how far they're willing to heed these expressions of concern,

which grow ever louder, about the price that civilians will pay for Israel's military operations,

which of course Israel has a lot of support for that from its allies too.

And finally, the biggest question of all.

Hi, it's Alex from Colchester. My question is, what is the solution? What would it take from

both sides for a lasting peace to be brought about? Which of you wants to go first? Jeremy or

Liz? I'll have a go if you like. Go for it. Go ahead, Jeremy. Once upon a time, there was something

called the peace process. Back in the 90s, it raised an awful lot of hopes. The idea was

that through negotiation, there would be a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Now for

a number of complicated reasons, which we don't have time to get into, that did not work.

It was in intensive care for a while. Diplomats, particularly some very hard working Americans,

tried to jolt it back into life, but it didn't succeed. Perhaps it was never going to succeed.

Perhaps the differences between the two sides were too great. And for the last 10 years or so,

since the Americans last had a go at trying to revive that peace process, the conflict has

effectively been left to fester. And a feeling has grown up, particularly I think among Mr. Netanyahu,

the Israeli Prime Minister, and his allies, and also some of his allies abroad as well,

that it could be managed, that it was a conflict that could be contained and Israel could get on

with other things, like dealing with Iran, like maybe having a rapprochement with Saudi Arabia,

and they could build a new Middle East. But there was always this terrible problem

of the Arab-Israeli, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And I would argue it's really central

to the problems of the region. And I think that that has been shown once again by the tragic,

horrendous, brutal events, starting with that Hamas raid. So, you know, you could say that

perhaps there was a moment back in the 90s when they might have got close to it, that might have

had a chance, but that moment went away. And I thought for some time that an explosion was coming.

I didn't expect it the way it was. The optimistic way of looking at it, if you want to find a

silver lining somewhere in the cloud, is that perhaps this will jolt all parties. I'm not talking

about Hamas. I'm talking about Palestinians, I'm talking about Israelis, their allies,

into doing some kind of a deal, to at least talking about doing some kind of a deal. That's

the optimistic one. The pessimistic one is we go even further down from here. And Lee's.

The mantra was land for peace. And for the Palestinians, the land meant returning to the

borders of the territory seized by Israel in the 1967 war, or land swaps, so that they had enough

territory to make an effective and a cohesive Palestinian state. And when those negotiations

were started and there were hope that they could be concluded, there had to be a corridor which

connected Gaza with the West Bank. So I think for the majority of Palestinians, a Palestinian state

control over their own lives is what they want. And I think Israelis would want to be out of

Palestinian lives. For a long time, they talked to peace, then they talked about separation.

They don't want to have each other to interfere, and especially not in the way they're doing now.

The big question is what does Hamas want? Israelis get really worried and angry that Hamas has not

changed its founding charter, which calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. Now,

in recent years, they have come up with documents which talked about their readiness

to accept that there could be a state, if principles like the right of Palestinians

to return are respected by Israel, it's carried out, that it's possible that they could move

towards some kind of an agreement. But I think what this current crisis tells us is that Hamas

is divided. There are political leaders in Hamas who didn't know about this assault,

who don't support this assault, who were trying to move away from the rule of the gun,

but the military wing, which seems to be the one in charge now, the big question is,

what do they want? Lee's, thank you. That was Lee's du set. We've also heard from Jeremy

Bowen. Thank you both for participating and please stay safe. Jackie, let me say what a great

honor it is to join you on your very successful Much Listen To Global News podcast. And it's

really good to know that so many of your listeners have so many questions about this conflict unfolding

in the Middle East, that they want to know what's happening and even more, they care about what's

happening. And that's it from us for now, but there will be a new edition of the Global News

podcast later. Our thanks to Lee's du set, her podcast is called The Conflict and you will

find it wherever you get your BBC podcasts. Thanks to Jeremy Bowen, our international editor,

and our security correspondent, Frank Gardner. And thank you if you sent in a question and our

apologies if we didn't get to yours. If you want us to, we might return with another Q&A in future,

so do please keep emailing in. The address is globalpodcast at bbc.co.uk. You can also find us

on X, formerly known as Twitter, at Global NewsPod. This edition was mixed by Philip Ball. The

producers were Anna Murphy and Judy Franco. Our editor is Karen Martin. I'm Jackie Leonard.

Thank you for listening.

Plus our team's experience to make business easier for you. Sign up today and save 20%.

Machine-generated transcript that may contain inaccuracies.