 |
|
|
|||||
The ceasefire agreed between Israel and Hamas makes provisions for the passage of food and humanitarian aid into Gaza. This support is much needed given that Gazas agricultural system has been severely damaged over the course of the war. Over the past 17 months we have analysed satellite images across the Gaza Strip to quantify the scale of agricultural destruction across the region. Our newly published research reveals not only the widespread extent of this destruction but also the potentially unprecedented pace at which it occurred. Our work covers the period until September 2024 but further data through to January 2025 is also available. Before the war, tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers and strawberries were grown in open fields and greenhouses, and olive and citrus trees lined rows across the Gazan landscape. The trees in particular are an important cultural heritage in the region, and agriculture was a vital part of Gazas economy. About half of the food eaten there was produced in the territory itself, and food made up a similar portion of its exports. By December 2023, only two months into the war, there were official warnings that the entire population of Gaza, more than 2 million people, was facing high levels of acute food insecurity. While that assessment was based on interviews and survey data, the level of agricultural damage across the whole landscape remained out of view. Tree crop damage by month from October 2023 to September 2024. The months in which damage first occurred are in blue and purple, while undamaged tree crops are shown in green. [Image: Yin et al (2025)] Most olive and citrus trees are gone To address this problem, we mapped the damage to tree crops mostly olive and citrus trees in Gaza each month over the course of the war up until September 2024. Together with our colleagues Dimah Habash and Mazin Qumsiyeh, we did this using very high-resolution satellite imagery, detailed enough to focus on individual trees. We first visually identified tree crops with and without damage to train our computer program, or model, so it knew what to look for. We then ran the model on all the satellite data. We also looked over a sample of results ourselves to confirm it was accurate. Our results showed that between 64% and 70% of all tree crop fields in Gaza had been damaged. That can either mean a few trees being destroyed, the whole field of trees completely removed, or anything in between. Most damage took place during the first few months of the war in autumn 2023. Exactly who destroyed these trees and why is beyond the scope of our research or expertise. Greenhouses and the date of initial damage between October 2023 and September 2024. [Image: Yin et al (2025)] In some areas, every greenhouse is gone As greenhouses look very different in satellite images, we used a separate method to map damage to them. We found over 4,000 had been damaged by September 2024, which is more than half of the total we had identified before the start of the war. In the south of the territory, where most greenhouses were found, the destruction was fairly steady from December 2023 onwards. But in north Gaza and Gaza City, the two most northerly of the territorys five governorates, most of the damage had already taken place by November and December 2023. By the end of our study period, all 578 greenhouses there had been destroyed. North Gaza and Gaza City have also seen the most damage to tree crop fields. By September 2024, over 90% of all tree crops in Gaza City had been destroyed, and 73% had been lost in north Gaza. In the three southern governorates, Khan Younis, Deir al-Balah and Rafah, around 50% of all tree crops had been destroyed. Agricultural damage is common in armed conflict, and has been documented with satellite analysis in Ukraine since the 2022 Russian invasion, in Syria and Iraq during the ISIS occupation in 2015, and in the Caucasus during the Chechen wars in the 1990s and 2000s. Satellite images show destruction of trees (top) and greenhouses (bottom) in north Gaza. [Image: Yin et al (2025)] The exact impact can differ from conflict to conflict. War may directly damage lands, as we have seen in Gaza, or it may lead to more fallow reas as infrastructure is damaged and farmers are forced to flee. A conflict also increases the need for local agricultural production, especially when food imports are restricted. Our assessment shows a very high rate of direct and extensive damage to Gazas agricultural system, both compared to previous conflict escalations there in 2014 and 2021, and in other conflict settings. For example, during the July-August war in 2014, around 1,200 greenhouses were damaged in Gaza. This time round at least three times as many have been damaged. Agricultural attacks are unlawful Attacks on agricultural lands are prohibited under international law. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court from 1998 defines the intentional use of starvation of civilians through depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival as a war crime. The Geneva conventions further define such indispensable objects as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production offoodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works. Our study provides transparent statistics on the extent and timing of damage to Gazas agricultural system. As well as documenting the impacts of the war, we hope it can help the massive rebuilding efforts that will be required. Restoring Gazas agricultural system goes beyond clearing debris and rubble, and rebuilding greenhouses. The soils need to be cleaned from possible contamination. Sewage and irrigation infrastructure need to be rebuilt. Such efforts may take a generation or more to complete. After all, olive and citrus trees can take five or more years to become productive, and 15 years to reach full maturity. After previous attacks on Gaza the trees were mostly replanted, and perhaps the same will happen again this time. But its for good reason they say that only people with hope for the future plant trees. Lina Eklund is an associate senior lecturer at Lund University. He Yin is an assistant professor of geography at Kent State University. Jamon Van Den Hoek is an associate professor of geography at Oregon State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Hate speech on X dramatically increased during the several months that Elon Musk served as CEO when compared to the prior months, according to a new study. The analysis, published Wednesday, showed that hate speech spiked on the platform shortly before Musk purchased X (then called Twitter), and continued through May 2023. Researchers found that the weekly rate of hate speech was up about 50% over the months prior to Musk’s purchase. The study noted an increase in use of homophobic, transphobic, and racist slurs. The researchers also found a spike in “likes” of hate posts, which they said indicate increased engagement. The findings run contrary to Musk’s claims that hate speech impressions on the platform were sloping downward. (X did not respond to Fast Company‘s request for comment.) To be sure, the researchers said they could not set firm conclusions on a cause-effect relationship between Musk’s acquisition of X and the findings. Still, they argued for stronger moderation and more research. “Overall, these results highlight a need for increased moderation to combat hate and inauthentic accounts on X,” the researchers wrote. Once Musk took over the social media company, he quickly loosened restrictions on what can be said or shared on the platform. The study’s release coincides with the slow return of many high-profile advertisers to X. Several brands, including Comcast, Apple, IBM, Disney, and Warner Bros., pulled their ad spend from the platform soon after Musk’s takeover, because ads began to appear next to hate speech and other offensive content. But now Musk is one of the top officials in President Trump’s administration, and some may want to bolster their relationships with Musk. Apple is reportedly considering returning to the platform. Comcast, IBM, Disney, and Warner Bros. have all resumed ad spend, according to The Wall Street Journal. Still, ad buyers have said that brands that return to X are spending much less than they were before Musk acquired the company. (Amazon is reportedly upping its ad spend.)
Category:
E-Commerce
Longstanding workplace issues such as mistreatment, the normalization of toxic behaviour and a lack of accountability for workplace culture have fueled a growing trend known as revenge quitting. This phenomenon, on the rise since the 2000s, sees employees leaving their jobs not just for better opportunities, but as a form of protest and self-preservation against unfair treatment. In the past, fear of economic ruin, social stigma and valuing job stability over personal dignity kept many employees from quitting under such circumstances. However, unprecedented inequality and other geopolitical risks are causing an increase in revenge quitting and similar behaviours. Companies that want to address this issue have much to gain, but they must go beyond diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or human resources strategies. Creating a genuine sense of belonging can reshape workplace culture, boost engagement and overall business success. Consequences of revenge quitting When employees resign as a final act of protest against toxic workplace conditions, the impact on organizations can be significant. One of the most obvious consequences is financial loss. Sudden departures lead to expenses related to recruiting, hiring, training, as well as lost productivity and project disruptions. Organizations also lose valuable institutional knowledge and skills when experienced employees quit, hampering innovation, continuity and long-term strategy. The abrupt departure of employees also sends a powerful message to remaining staff, potentially leading to decreased morale, trust and engagement. High-profile cases of revenge quitting can also damage an organizations reputation, affecting customer relationships and investor confidence. Finally, revenge quitting can have lasting consequences on workplace culture. If the toxic behaviour that caused the resignation remains unaddressed, remaining employees may become disengaged, leading to a decline in work quality. Mitigating the risk of revenge quitting My research has found that when employees feel a genuine sense of belonging, they are more engaged and loyal, they produce more innovative and creative solutions, and they are more reliable and productive. Moreover, belonging buffers against workplace stressors that lead to toxic behaviours by reducing feelings of isolation, mitigating burnout and encouraging active listening before making decisions. This, in turn, decreases the likelihood of employees making abrupt, retaliatory exits. Employees want to work for companies that respect their individuality and value their contributions. High-performing teams thrive when there is clear accountability, fair conflict resolution and a culture of feedback and learning. Addressing toxic behaviours early helps maintain trust and reduces the risk of retaliatory quitting. Its also essential to distinguish between belonging and merely fitting in. True belonging is a reciprocated behaviour between employees and the organization, not solely the employees responsibility. Organizations that focus only on forcing employees to fit in overlook the systemic changes required to foster true benefits. Belonging requires an active commitment to the five core indicators of belonging: comfort, connection, psychological safety and well-being. Each indicator is essential in reducing the desire to disengage or quit out of frustration or retaliation. Pillar 1: Comfort Workplace comfort is essential for focus, cognitive function and productivity. While physical factors like temperature, noise and ergonomics matter, social comfort is more critical. Social comfort comes from clear expectations, defined workflows and recognizing individual talents within a team. When the economy becomes volatile, it can force organizations to deviate from their original strategic plans in an effort to stay afloat. When this happens, comfort is the first thing to erode in a workplace, which allows toxicity to go unchecked. For example, when economic shifts force leaders to pivot, employees may have to scrap their work. If leadership lacks alignment in the new strategic actions, expectations will rise while clarity drops, creating stress and conflict. Leaders should reset expectations, restore social comfort and ensure collaboration rather than competition. Pillar 2: Connections Strong social relationships in the workplace can buffer against stress and enhance resilience. Connection is fostered through mentorship programs, collaboration and informal networking. In remote and hybrid work settings, ensuring employees feel connected to their teams through structured check-ins and virtual social space is critical. Connections increase engagement and build emotional attachment, which reduces the risk of employees leaving. Employees who experience meaningful interactions with colleagues and leaders are more engaged and less likely to feel alienated. Pillar 3: Contributions Employees need to feel that their work is meaningful and valued. Recognition activates the brains reward system, which reinforces motivation and increases engagement. When employees feel unappreciated, resentment builds. When this happens repetitively, it can lead employees to disengage from their work, and eventually depart. Organizations must implement structured recognition programs that celebrate individual and team achievements, ensuring employees know their work is valued. Equally important is offering opportunities for employees to contribute beyond their job descriptions, whether through special projects or mentoring. A workplacethat values and acknowledges contributions fosters commitment and decreases the likelihood of employees resigning. Pillar 4: Psychological safety Ensuring employees ideas and concerns are met with curiosity and understanding is crucial for retention. In fear-based workplaces, stress inhibits cognitive function and creativity. Leaders must create environments where feedback is welcomed, mistakes are viewed as learning opportunities and employees feel empowered to express their perspectives. Employees feel safe when they work in an environment where feedback is taught and encouraged. They are less likely to disengage or engage in retaliatory behaviours like revenge quitting. Strategies such as clear communication channels, anonymous feedback mechanisms and inclusive leadership training help create psychological safety. Pillar 5: Well-being Employee well-being is tied to cognitive function, emotional regulation and job satisfaction. Employees experiencing chronic stress, burnout or work-life imbalances are more likely to disengage and eventually quit. Workplace programs that support mental and physical health are crucial. Offering flexible work arrangements, mental health and stress management resources, normalizing breaks and setting boundaries helps sustain employee energy and commitment. More than a checkbox Revenge quitting isnt just a series of isolated incidents, but a reflection of a deeper, systemic disregard for worker dignity. The workforce has changed, with employees now prioritizing workplaces where they feel respected, valued and safe. Companies that fail to adapt will continue to lose experienced, talented workers not because the job market is more competitive, but because employees refuse to tolerate environments that undermine their dignity. Leaders need to recognize that creating a culture of belonging isnt about checking a DEI box its about ensuring employees have every reason to stay and grow within their organizations. Andrea Carter, adjunct faculty in industrial and organizational psychology, Adler University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||