Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene Jai Ley.
Speaker 1: We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com, and of course, on the Bloomberg. Joining
Speaker 1: us now is Michael Purvis Whiting and co chief global
Speaker 1: strategist and head of equity Derivatives, Michael GOODMANNY. She said,
Speaker 1: it doesn't sound like two countries gunning for a trade war,
Speaker 1: does it not at all? I mean, it is a
Speaker 1: it's a curious uh think of for for Trump to
Speaker 1: be offering up if he wants to, you know, reduce
Speaker 1: the trade war uh clouds and have them paid from
Speaker 1: the horizon. Uh. I think just you know, given how
Speaker 1: sensitive that that company has been from a national security
Speaker 1: point of view. UM. But certainly you know, when you
Speaker 1: when when you see you know, manum is going to
Speaker 1: be uh uh you know, hanging out with the Vice
Speaker 1: Premier of China and all that, it does look like,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of a budding romance, if you will,
Speaker 1: UM between these two countries. And that's obviously very you
Speaker 1: know that that's one less worry factor for the markets.
Speaker 1: We all saw the tweet from the President of the
Speaker 1: United States, Presidency of China and I are working together
Speaker 1: to give massive Chinese phone company ZTE away to get
Speaker 1: back into business fast. Too many jobs in China lost.
Speaker 1: Commerce Department has been instructed to get it done. Still
Speaker 1: trying to work out what gets it done means. As
Speaker 1: you say, Michael, this is a company that has been
Speaker 1: a national security issue that the Republicans themselves were quite
Speaker 1: firm with President Obama and his administration for not doing
Speaker 1: enough around this company, and now it seems like it's
Speaker 1: a a bargaining chip at a broader issue, right. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's uh, you know, weaving its specific
Speaker 1: corporate situations into foreign policies always is always a tricky
Speaker 1: path there, but but this one especially so given you know,
Speaker 1: it will be interesting to see how how the more
Speaker 1: mainstream Republicans you know, react to that, let alone the
Speaker 1: Democrats waking up this morning to kind of strip out
Speaker 1: the nuances of z T and what's happening with various
Speaker 1: companies and how transactional this seems to be. You'd have
Speaker 1: to say, Michael, if this was your key risk for
Speaker 1: twent and the idea that a trade war was going
Speaker 1: to one fall between China and the United States. These
Speaker 1: headlines are somewhat bullish, on't they. Yeah, yeah, yeah, as
Speaker 1: as we're talking about it's it's it's one less sort
Speaker 1: of risk to U to worry about. I I personally
Speaker 1: was never looked at the trade wars as being um
Speaker 1: and I'm not sure anyone really did as being you know, um,
Speaker 1: the the most dominant or or most palpable risk for
Speaker 1: the markets this year. Certainly obviously something to be monitoring there.
Speaker 1: But you know, I think in the back of a
Speaker 1: lot of people's minds, people thought it would be a
Speaker 1: lot of a lot of bark and probably a lot
Speaker 1: less bite as you got in down into the granular
Speaker 1: details and and but you know, with this news breaking
Speaker 1: up with the weekend, it certainly seems um, perhaps even
Speaker 1: a less so. Yes, Michael Purvis with us with Weeden
Speaker 1: is well, Michael, I literally named vix charts Purvous charts.
Speaker 1: You are a great student of the vix. What is
Speaker 1: the distinctive feature of a VIX twenty two to thirteen
Speaker 1: this time around? Is it correlated to equities? That's the
Speaker 1: spot The present vix versus future vixes. What's the pro
Speaker 1: nuance in this move? I think what's really defined the
Speaker 1: vix UH over the last several weeks um is how
Speaker 1: it has been behaving relative to the other vixes TOM.
Speaker 1: In other words, there's a VIX for the Russell two thousand,
Speaker 1: the small caps, there's a VIX for eurostocks. There's the
Speaker 1: VIX right, there's always the Pharaoh vix UH. There there's
Speaker 1: also you know a bunch of alatility metrics across assets.
Speaker 1: There's a VIX for the nd X, which is really
Speaker 1: kind of tracks the UH, much more sensitive to the
Speaker 1: the big tech companies. And what I find fascinating right
Speaker 1: now is that if you look at typically the VIX
Speaker 1: trades at a discount to most of these other vixes,
Speaker 1: But if you look at it recently, it's actually trading.
Speaker 1: It's been trading at a pretty consistent premium, or at
Speaker 1: least at very historical levels relatively the other ones. The one,
Speaker 1: the one other VIX that it's not trading at a
Speaker 1: premium two is the what's called the v X and
Speaker 1: or the VIX for the nd X. And what that
Speaker 1: is telling me is that this you know, higher NIX
Speaker 1: range is really not about It's really not about you know,
Speaker 1: um interest rates, uh, you know, spiraling ever higher. Um.
Speaker 1: It's really about what happened, um, you know back with
Speaker 1: this this Facebook uh Cambridge analytical scandal several weeks back,
Speaker 1: and whether the markets were going to re rate Facebook
Speaker 1: and its peers and Fang and for the matter in
Speaker 1: tech lower there. And that's why, you know, the two
Speaker 1: big outperformers from the ballside have been the VIX and
Speaker 1: this and this and this VIX for the NDA. I
Speaker 1: think that's what you're seeing is is that those clouds
Speaker 1: are fading and that's allowing the VIX to you know.
Speaker 1: So this is a really interesting point. So we had
Speaker 1: the VOLE blow up of February where these short volatility
Speaker 1: products completely failed and a lot of people said, we're
Speaker 1: moving into a regime of higher volatility. We couldn't possibly
Speaker 1: go back to because what was going to happen to
Speaker 1: the world was gonna end. We couldn't possibly go back
Speaker 1: to the VOLE levels of seventeen. But if the question is,
Speaker 1: and the premise, your premise right now is that this
Speaker 1: was a text story, then I'll ask the question again,
Speaker 1: can we go back to the lower volatility range. I
Speaker 1: think I think it is a look, two thousand seventeen
Speaker 1: was distinguished by having the lowest realized volatility on in
Speaker 1: decades um uh and and and and more vixed nine
Speaker 1: prints than any other year in the in the in
Speaker 1: the vix's history, we even had a few ticks below
Speaker 1: nine and le January getting back to those levels I
Speaker 1: think is a real push if for nowhere the reason
Speaker 1: that we do have higher interest rates, and you can't
Speaker 1: be dismissed of higher interest rates in the volatility story.
Speaker 1: I just think that what's dominant right now is the
Speaker 1: tech the tech situation there. But um uh, you know,
Speaker 1: if we could we see twelves and thirteens, absolutely, and
Speaker 1: I mean we we are the christ on Friday and
Speaker 1: and and so, could we see a lot more of
Speaker 1: this sort of let's call it, you know, eleven twelve
Speaker 1: to fifteen rather than sort of fifteen to twenty going forward? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean I think that's really a function of whether
Speaker 1: that ultimately, whether that tech dip gets bought that the
Speaker 1: the you know, if if I've been arguing time that
Speaker 1: that so goes tech uh particularly fang so goes the
Speaker 1: the SPX and so goes the vix. It's incredibly it's
Speaker 1: it's become absolutely integrated into overall US equity story. As
Speaker 1: a strategy standpoint, where do you make up oil seventies
Speaker 1: six sixty brand up to seventy thirty nine in two
Speaker 1: cups of coffee this morning? Obviously, the backdrop here out
Speaker 1: on the social feed, in the various news agencies is
Speaker 1: what's going on in Gaza. I've got seven Palestinians killed,
Speaker 1: Nine Palestinians killed according to CNN International, Reuters has ten.
Speaker 1: Even in folks, I'm very unsure what that number is.
Speaker 1: That's just what we're seeing within the feed right now.
Speaker 1: There's geo political risk out there. Do you have a
Speaker 1: point in your head where a certain Brent price or
Speaker 1: West Texas Intermediate price gets Michael Purvis's attention. Well, I
Speaker 1: think the move that we're we've all been looking for,
Speaker 1: and even if some of this Middle East headlines were
Speaker 1: not there, uh, particularly you know, the Gaza headlines, I
Speaker 1: think people sort of feel that there's enough momentum right now.
Speaker 1: Take out seventy that paint that paints a path towards
Speaker 1: eighty pretty well. I know there's a lot of calls
Speaker 1: out there for a hundred And I'm not an oil
Speaker 1: expert by any stretch, but I would say that that, um,
Speaker 1: I think, you know, getting above eight on w T
Speaker 1: I does seem like that's a lot of work to do.
Speaker 1: You're gonna need something more than just some Gaza headlines
Speaker 1: and iron um to get there. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: technical resistance at the eighty dollar level there. But but look,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean it's still striking. Is that we're
Speaker 1: talking about, you know, seventy crude? Right? I mean he
Speaker 1: would have guessed, you know, six months ago, nine months ago,
Speaker 1: very few people are out there on that. You know,
Speaker 1: twenty six dollars was not that long ago. This is great.
Speaker 1: Courier dude showed up today. Michael Purvis showed up. Did
Speaker 1: you ride a bicycle and in the ring? I did?
Speaker 1: I bike as much as I can. You like, live
Speaker 1: two blocks away, so it's it's the fastest way to
Speaker 1: get around. Thank you, Michael, Chief global strategist and head
Speaker 1: of Equity Derivatives to Package and I got to get
Speaker 1: over near the Hilt Motel. We're gonna do a couple
Speaker 1: of themes here. Isaac Wiltanski with us with a compass
Speaker 1: point really did dive into just sort of the news
Speaker 1: flow of the week. Isaac um. A really really strong
Speaker 1: supporter of my work well over a decade has been
Speaker 1: Richard Clarada, who is going to be upfront and the
Speaker 1: beauty contest tomorrow morning for the Senate Banking Committee to
Speaker 1: replace Stanley Fisher as the PhD type is Vice Chairman
Speaker 1: of the Fed. Dr Clarata, folks I've always associated with
Speaker 1: Columbia University, has written definitive work on dynamics stochastic general
Speaker 1: equilibrium theory. There'll be a quiz at the end of
Speaker 1: this UH section as well, Isaac, Isaac, so we don't
Speaker 1: do DSGE theory on a Monday morning. Who is Richard
Speaker 1: Clarida and why will you lean forward during his testimony tomorrow?
Speaker 1: I think Richard Clarida is going to be c as
Speaker 1: UH the center of economic hat on the Federal Reserve
Speaker 1: Board under President Donald Trump, and one of the viewpoints
Speaker 1: here in d C has been that Chairman Powell is
Speaker 1: more of a has more markets experience and not as
Speaker 1: much economic background, and so the Trump white House was
Speaker 1: clearly and I think undeniably looking for someone to sit
Speaker 1: in that vice chairman's role that number two spots, who
Speaker 1: has written papers like the one that you just discussed,
Speaker 1: and who can delve deeply with the staff there on
Speaker 1: economic theory. And so I think the hearing tomorrow, which
Speaker 1: will actually include um both Richard Clarada and Michelle Bowman,
Speaker 1: who is also nominated to the board. She's nominated for
Speaker 1: a spot that's reserved for someone with community banking expertise.
Speaker 1: I think that the focus is going to be on
Speaker 1: Mr Clarada because he is seen as one of these
Speaker 1: pillars of economic thought for the for the Powell Federal Reserve, Isaaca,
Speaker 1: I have to say, out of all the things that
Speaker 1: we've wasted our time talking about since November twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve under this administration is one of them.
Speaker 1: I lost count of how many economists were worried about
Speaker 1: the replacements filling the seats on the Federal Reserve that
Speaker 1: would be nominated by this administration when actually looking back
Speaker 1: on it, they've been really mainstream candidates. This administrations has
Speaker 1: filled the empty seats at the Federal Reserve with some
Speaker 1: with some fantastic names, nothing controversial about it. I think
Speaker 1: you hit the nail on the head there. Look this
Speaker 1: this Federal Reserve Board, at least the members that we
Speaker 1: have so far are centrists and pragmatists. Now, part of
Speaker 1: that is the realization that it is hard to get
Speaker 1: someone through the Senate. Still, the average length of confirming
Speaker 1: someone for those individuals who are lucky enough to be confirmed,
Speaker 1: is about eighty or so days right now in the U. S. Senate.
Speaker 1: And that's the longest at least out of that I've
Speaker 1: counted out of the past five administrations. So it takes
Speaker 1: a considerable amount time. And so part of that is
Speaker 1: is the realities of the Senate. But I think part
Speaker 1: of it is the Trump administration's acceptance of the importance
Speaker 1: of the economy within their broader storyline. And you can't
Speaker 1: mess around with the frind if the economy is going
Speaker 1: to be part of your your political storyline, if you're
Speaker 1: just joining us. I Boltansky with his compass point out
Speaker 1: of Ohio, Wesley and a really good feeling for the
Speaker 1: nitte gritte of Washington, d C Isaac, John Swann, er uh,
Speaker 1: Mike Allen, I can't remember who wrote it, talked about
Speaker 1: the exhaustion and the few members of the Trump team
Speaker 1: on trade that's not only China, China, China, like we
Speaker 1: haven't the headlines this morning, but also NAFTA as well.
Speaker 1: How thinly staffed is the Trump trade team. I think
Speaker 1: it's something that I've noticed over the past few months.
Speaker 1: When you walk around own some of these buildings, whether
Speaker 1: it's a Commerce department or the Treasury or any of
Speaker 1: the other major agency, you see that there are a
Speaker 1: lot of empty offices, and that has a toll. And
Speaker 1: the US, especially on trade, is facing battles on a
Speaker 1: number of fronts, and these battles take up hundreds and
Speaker 1: thousands of pages of paper. Yeah, I mean you did interrupt,
Speaker 1: but just because of time. How does Canada in Mexico
Speaker 1: adapt to the facts we have an exhausted NAFTA team. Well,
Speaker 1: I think the positive here is the deadline, albeit a
Speaker 1: somewhat squishy deadline on May seventeenth to get a NAPTA
Speaker 1: deal announcement. Look, deadlines are are able to catalyze action
Speaker 1: in DC more so than anything else. So yes, the
Speaker 1: NAFTA team is tired, but I think speaker Ryan say,
Speaker 1: it's setting a quasi deadline of May seventeenth for a
Speaker 1: deal announcement. NAFTA it's going to catalyze movement here decay,
Speaker 1: and this of course needs to happen. The deadlines need
Speaker 1: to be hit in and thereabouts because the midterms are
Speaker 1: coming up, Isaac, so they need to deal before that.
Speaker 1: I want you to help sort of translate something for me.
Speaker 1: The president's waiting. The following presidency of China and I
Speaker 1: are working together to give massive Chinese phone company z
Speaker 1: t E a way to get back into business fast.
Speaker 1: Too many jobs in China lost. Commerce Department has been
Speaker 1: instructed to get it done. Z t E. ISAAC was
Speaker 1: a national security issue for good reasons. A blockade was
Speaker 1: put on it. What does it mean when the President
Speaker 1: turns around and says, I've instructed the Commerce Department to
Speaker 1: get it done? What happens next? I think? I think
Speaker 1: there's only one takeaway that you can have from the
Speaker 1: President's tweeting that and that policy reversal. It's at the
Speaker 1: president c z T is a bargaining chip in the
Speaker 1: broader negotiation between China and the EU. Okay, Isaac, you're
Speaker 1: expert on this. Can that happen? I don't have any
Speaker 1: answer on this Monday morning. Granted, its news overnight is
Speaker 1: essentially and over the weekend, can you use a sanctioned
Speaker 1: international offender as a quote bargaining chip unquote. You know,
Speaker 1: there's a saying that a law is only as strong
Speaker 1: as the most recent congress, meaning that Congress can change
Speaker 1: anything that a previous congress is done. A administrative action
Speaker 1: is largely as strong as the most recent administration. And
Speaker 1: so yes, I think that the President as of last night,
Speaker 1: with that tweet, made it clear that ZTE is on
Speaker 1: the table and it's going to be part of a
Speaker 1: negotiation between China and US as as trade talks continue.
Speaker 1: So trade sulks resumed this week. The top Chinese economic
Speaker 1: advisor to president she coming over to Washington, d c.
Speaker 1: Isaac's attentions actually easing. Is that's what you're seeing and
Speaker 1: what to what extent can we get a deal? And
Speaker 1: what does that deal look like. I think that both
Speaker 1: sides realize that it is in their own best interest
Speaker 1: to step back from the cliff, which is part of
Speaker 1: the reason that I think they will step back from
Speaker 1: the cliff. The more bargaining ships that we put on
Speaker 1: the table, and it's clear that the President view z
Speaker 1: t E as a bargaining ship, the more of those
Speaker 1: that we have on the table, the easier it is
Speaker 1: to craft a space saving deal that will at least
Speaker 1: get us back to the trade the tont that we
Speaker 1: had only a few months ago. Isaac wouldn't find a
Speaker 1: question if we could. We're following Gaza, the news out
Speaker 1: of Gaza, folks, I want to be very careful about
Speaker 1: the news flow there. Michael Barr in New York and
Speaker 1: our other team across the nation will have updates on
Speaker 1: that within minutes. But Isaac, the movement of the embassy
Speaker 1: to Jerusalem, we had Michael Arnod of Israel on our
Speaker 1: our head of all of our Israel and Palestinian coverage.
Speaker 1: He was great. How does this play in the Beltway?
Speaker 1: How does the move of this embassy play in your
Speaker 1: Washington Beltway? You know, it's difficult to tell at the moment,
Speaker 1: especially given the headlines that we're seeing cross and and
Speaker 1: I want to be careful as well, but I can
Speaker 1: tell you those policy experts that that I follow generally
Speaker 1: view this is more of a symbolic move than a
Speaker 1: substantive move. But as we know, in foreign affairs, symbolism matters,
Speaker 1: and so um I think at the moment, everyone is
Speaker 1: just watching to see what happens more so than anything else.
Speaker 1: Isaac Boltansky thinking so much, great update? Why why Range?
Speaker 1: Why did I'll get it out? John three to one?
Speaker 1: Why did Ranging update? Very much? With compass point as well,
Speaker 1: Stephen Roschuto with us, it was wonderful to have on.
Speaker 1: We're trying to slice in dice well the American consumer,
Speaker 1: he is with miserable UH securities. UH. Their chief US
Speaker 1: economists as well, like US, will start with inflation because
Speaker 1: that's where President mr was as well. It's certainly not
Speaker 1: runaway inflation. Is it really higher inflation? Well, I think
Speaker 1: you've seen general upward drift and inflation. The question is
Speaker 1: what's been the driving factor. I think the driving factor
Speaker 1: was a sixteen month slide in the dollar that eliminated
Speaker 1: some of the global deflationary pressures from dampening domestic price pressures.
Speaker 1: And now I think the dollars turn corner and I
Speaker 1: think the upward movement and the dollar will tend to
Speaker 1: moderate the inflation environment again, and I think that's gonna
Speaker 1: be the big surprise for people. My question, Steve on
Speaker 1: a Monday, is there's a certitude about three or four
Speaker 1: rate increases and all my radar go up. When I
Speaker 1: use the word, everybody's just certain they've got this all
Speaker 1: figured out. We know it is a real risk factor.
Speaker 1: I mean I was one of the first ones who
Speaker 1: moved from two to four rate hikes, and to be
Speaker 1: honest with you, I did it with the hope that
Speaker 1: would eventually be the first one to move back from four. Uh.
Speaker 1: And I continue to look for the data. And that's
Speaker 1: why I think the retail sales numbers and the housing
Speaker 1: numbers that we're gonna have out this week are very,
Speaker 1: very critical in that environment. And I think dovetailing on
Speaker 1: the backdrop of what we saw from benond inflation readings
Speaker 1: last week, I think those factors could come in to
Speaker 1: suggest that four may not be necessary. But for right now,
Speaker 1: it's still our forecast. But we're looking for evidence that
Speaker 1: we think will come through allows us to move it
Speaker 1: back and step back from a four. Right hya that's
Speaker 1: back on targets. Steve On They why do they need
Speaker 1: to back off? Well, the question is how far do
Speaker 1: you need to go before you cause something to go wrong? Um,
Speaker 1: the curve is flattening rather dramatically, and if you go
Speaker 1: back and look at the last three long business cycles
Speaker 1: the FED, and they've been long business cycles because inflation
Speaker 1: didn't manifest themselves, manifests itself. And this time through it's
Speaker 1: exactly the same environment. And each time that they continued
Speaker 1: to push the front end of the curve up, they
Speaker 1: got into an environment where there was some kind of
Speaker 1: financial hiccup which was unnecessary. And I think this is
Speaker 1: one of the reasons why they should learn from the
Speaker 1: lessons of three out of three, which is a very
Speaker 1: very abnormal process in an economy to have three times
Speaker 1: in a row the same thing developed. And I'm afraid
Speaker 1: that if they continue to push for the four over time,
Speaker 1: that we'll get to a curve that will be so
Speaker 1: flat that it will cause a financial hiccup to a car.
Speaker 1: Do you think in the curve is artificial or it's
Speaker 1: something to actually pay attention to? And from what I've heard,
Speaker 1: so fine, you don't think it's official so artificial, So
Speaker 1: why isn't it? I don't think it's artificial because the
Speaker 1: ft is unwinding, there's been a big uptick in supply.
Speaker 1: A number of things that should have pushed the long
Speaker 1: end of the curve up haven't. There's a global grab
Speaker 1: for yield. There's a global glab grab for duration. We
Speaker 1: saw the announcement over the weekend of the large UK
Speaker 1: pension fund that's opted to move out into US treasuries
Speaker 1: to grab the yield. Environment. On one of your own stories,
Speaker 1: I saw recently that you had a one ninety yield
Speaker 1: on Australian bonds zero precent real yields. I think that's
Speaker 1: the environment that's grabbing it. Step Shot so with us
Speaker 1: this warning, Mr shootos with a missoo where he is
Speaker 1: their chief US economist of of all things UH. Here
Speaker 1: to help us learn more about what is going on
Speaker 1: in the Middle East currently is Jonathan ferzigera Bloomberg Middle
Speaker 1: East politics reporter. And Jonathan, I wonder if you could
Speaker 1: just give us a little bit of a history lesson
Speaker 1: to understand how we got to this situation and why
Speaker 1: the location of the US embassy in Jerusalem is such
Speaker 1: a contentious issue. Sure, Jerusalem has resonances for billions of
Speaker 1: people around the world. Is a Jewish, Christian, Muslim, It
Speaker 1: is the site of some of the holiest places for
Speaker 1: all the fates um in. Now we're going back around
Speaker 1: seventy years and the Israel has established the idea was
Speaker 1: that Jerusalem was going to be a capital for both
Speaker 1: Israel Jewish state and the Palestinian state. That didn't happen.
Speaker 1: UH Israel UM and the Arab nations around it went
Speaker 1: into a war Israel one, it established the capital, and
Speaker 1: virtually nobody, no other state in the world, very few
Speaker 1: UH recognized it as a capital. So now seven years
Speaker 1: later Trump has done that. Okay, But but Jonnath, let
Speaker 1: me just break in and understand, because there there was
Speaker 1: obviously many combatants in that war of n and Jordan's
Speaker 1: was involved in a way that shaped the future of Jerusalem,
Speaker 1: did it not? Okay? So Jordan's int eight wound up
Speaker 1: as the occupying power U over Jerusalem and the West
Speaker 1: Bank that's half of Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, so the city
Speaker 1: was split. It was split until nineteen sixty seven Jordan's
Speaker 1: had control of it, and then in the nineteen sixty
Speaker 1: seven more the sixty war, UH Israel captured East Jerusalem
Speaker 1: and the West Bank and they've been in charge since
Speaker 1: they've been next the city. And again that hasn't been
Speaker 1: recognized by most countries. And at that time, just to
Speaker 1: be clear, at that time, in the Old City, because
Speaker 1: there's the new City. In the Old City of Jerusalem.
Speaker 1: There was a Jewish quarter in the Old City and
Speaker 1: there were expulsions there as well. Yeah, the old city
Speaker 1: was plundered. Uh. The old city is walled. It has
Speaker 1: uh three of the Holy of Sites in Islam and
Speaker 1: Judaism and Christianity. Um. And so there was a Jewish
Speaker 1: section and those Jews were expelled in night. They came
Speaker 1: back in sixty seven. Justin how unified is Israel behind
Speaker 1: Mr net Yahoo and behind these moments this morning, I
Speaker 1: think Israel is very deeply split. Um. It tilts towards
Speaker 1: Ntan Yahoo. Uh. He uh gives his really a sense
Speaker 1: that he's fighting, that he's standing up. But especially now
Speaker 1: with the violence in in Gaza. Um, it's not going
Speaker 1: down really well. And Israelis are worried to that point.
Speaker 1: And I mean it's with great respect for all in
Speaker 1: the midst and I mean folks, the real time midst
Speaker 1: of these protests. Is there a limit? Is there a
Speaker 1: hurdle where this protest begins to have residence with the
Speaker 1: people of Israel or is it is We've had in
Speaker 1: this three or four reports this morning. A distraction fifty
Speaker 1: miles away which sounds almost cruel. Well, I don't think
Speaker 1: it's a distraction. I think that as the deaths all
Speaker 1: amounts and it is very quick today, UM, people are
Speaker 1: digesting this and it will I mean your tomorrow's front
Speaker 1: pages or the internet. Right now is a mix between
Speaker 1: the glory of the the U. S. Embassy and the
Speaker 1: bloodshed in in Gaza. So it's it's a pretty cloudy picture, Jonathan.
Speaker 1: What has been the reaction of the Palestinian Authority based
Speaker 1: in the West Bank in Ramala. So as soon as
Speaker 1: UH President Trump announced the move and the recognition of
Speaker 1: Jerusalem and Israel's capital, This was in December, the Palestinian
Speaker 1: said that they were pulling out of the peace process
Speaker 1: or whatever peace process were started to form under under Trump. UM.
Speaker 1: Since then, they've been somewhat removed from the confrontations in Gaza.
Speaker 1: UM and the West Bank has been, you know, comparatively tranquil.
Speaker 1: And this would because of Palestinian politics and the split
Speaker 1: between the Palestina Authority and the West Bank and Gaza
Speaker 1: Strip which is controlled by Hamas. What's the economic situation
Speaker 1: in Gaza, It's desperate, Uh, it is been awful for
Speaker 1: the last ten years of the highest unemployment UM and
Speaker 1: food poverty and uh, it's just it's it's bleak um
Speaker 1: and it's gotten worse UM. Partly, I mean a lot
Speaker 1: of this derived from the fact that Gaza is surrounded
Speaker 1: by by fences, is locked in by Israel and Egypt
Speaker 1: in the south. UM, so the question of trade UM
Speaker 1: is almost off the often map. I want to thank
Speaker 1: you very much for joining us Jonathan Bloomberg Middle East
Speaker 1: politics reporter, giving us details about the United States opening
Speaker 1: it's a Jerusalem embassy and also dozens killed, a dozen
Speaker 1: stead in as Gaza as confrontations over this US embassy
Speaker 1: move on the border between Gaza and you know, and Israel.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and
Speaker 1: listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast
Speaker 1: platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane before
Speaker 1: the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio.