Who is responsible for the killing of Gazans?

The question of who is responsible for the killing of Gazans is complex and deeply tied to the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Responsibility depends on the context, perspective, and the specific events being referred to. In this post an attempt is being made to understand the present situation and propose a plausible solution:

Humanitarian perspective:

The Israeli military is often held responsible for a significant number of civilian casualties in Gaza, especially during major military operations. Israel says it targets Hamas and other militant groups, but these operations have resulted in many civilian deaths due to the densely populated nature of Gaza

Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza are also accused for operating from within civilian areas, use human shields, or launch rockets indiscriminately into Israeli territory, provoking retaliatory strikes and contributing to the cycle of violence.

International perspective:

International organizations, like the United Nations and human rights groups ‑ Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch ‑ accuse both Israel and Palestinian armed groups for the lingering conflict resulting in huge loss of human lives, particularly women and children.

Israel often accused of disproportionate use of force and blockade policies that severely impact civilians.

Palestinian groups are condemned for indiscriminate rocket attacks and operating in ways that endanger Israeli civilians.

Structural and political responsibility:

Long-term occupation, blockade, and lack of a viable peace process can be termed as structural causes of repeated violence.

Israel controls most of Gaza’s borders, airspace, and resources, while Hamas governs internally but with limited capacity.

International actors, including the United States, Egypt, Iran, and others, also play roles through military aid, political backing, or indirect support.

Crux of the Matter:

Direct military actions causing deaths are typically attributed to the Israeli military or Palestinian armed groups, depending on perspective of on lookers. Broader responsibility lies with political leaders, ongoing occupation, militant governance, and an international community that has often failed to resolve the underlying issues.

Way Forward:

Israel, now fully supported by US President Donald Trump wants complete cleansing/ exit of Gazans. During the ongoing conflict nearly 100,000 Gazans, mostly women and children have been killed. However, Gazans resolve has sustained are they are not ready to desert their homeland.

The other and more civilized option is creation of two states, Israel and Palestine. Saudi Arabia and many other Muslim countries support this.

United States also initiated Abraham Accords paving way for the recognition of Israel. However, many supporters of this initiative want Israel to go back to its original borders and let the Palestinians manage their own state.

Gaza 'Riviera of the Middle East'

Now the real stumbling block is US President Trump's plan to make Gaza 'Riviera of the Middle East' which requires all the 2.2 million residents to vacate the strip. This vision involved the United States taking control of Gaza, relocating its approximately two million Palestinian residents to neighboring countries, and redeveloping the area into a luxury resort destination. Trump suggested that Gaza's coastal location could make it "better than Monaco" if redeveloped appropriately.

This proposal received strong support from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials, who viewed it as a means to disarm Hamas and alter the region's dynamics. However, it faced significant criticism internationally. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres labeled the plan as "ethnic cleansing," emphasizing that forcibly transferring populations violates international law. Arab nations, including Jordan, also rejected the proposal, with Jordan's King Abdullah II expressing firm opposition to the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza.

The plan also sparked debate within the United States, with bipartisan concerns about its feasibility and ethical implications. Critics argued that it misread the interests of Arab partners and could destabilize the region further. Facing mounting opposition, President Trump later stated that he would "recommend" but not enforce the plan, indicating a step back from the initial proposal.

 

 

 

 

Anti-Trump Demonstrations across 50 States

According to the Hill, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators are hitting the streets across the country on Saturday in protest of President Donald Trump and his administration.

The “Hands Off!” rallies are taking place in more than 1,000 cities across all 50 states, and nearly 400,000 people have signed up to attend the protests, according to the progressive organization Indivisible, which is one of the almost 200 groups partnering to organize the event. 

Protesters are demanding an end to billionaire influence and “rampant corruption” in the administration, a stop to Social Security and Medicare cuts, and an end to attacks on trans people, immigrants and other marginalized communities.

Early Saturday morning, on Capitol Hill, the Senate voted to adopt a budget resolution that will kickstart the implementation of Trump’s domestic agenda. The measure passed with a 51-48 vote after the upper chamber worked through the night.

The deal, which still needs to pass the House, has drawn the ire of some House Republicans, with one lawmaker even calling the resolution “unserious and disappointing.” 

This all comes as the economy reels from Trump’s sweeping tariffs on US trading partners after brutal few days for the stock market.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris praised the “Hands Off!” rallies occurring across the country on Saturday.

“Today in every state across our nation, Americans are standing up to the administration as they implement Project 2025 at full speed,” she wrote on the social platform X, referencing the Heritage Foundation’s political playbook.

“The voices of working people will always be louder than the unelected billionaires” she added, thanking demonstrators for speaking out against the Trump administration and its agenda.

Rep. Melanie Stansbury thanked demonstrators across the US for protesting against the Trump administration on Saturday.

“Across the country and back at home, people are coming out to rally and tell Donald Trump and Elon Musk to hand off our healthcare, our veterans, and our democracy,” she wrote on the social platform X

“Thankful to everyone organizing, standing up, and speaking out,” she added.

Rep. Al Green promised to bring forth articles of impeachment against President Trump within the next 30 days on Saturday.

“You don’t deserve the office you hold,” he said at a Washington rally. “You can’t be entrusted with liberty and justice for all. You can’t be entrusted with the government of the people by the people for the people.”

“I’m coming for you,” the Texas Democrat added, donning a shirt reading “censured not silenced.”

Green made headlines earlier this year after he was censured for his protest during Trump’s joint address to Congress in March.

In February, Green signaled he would introduce impeachment efforts over the president’s comments about Gaza.

Rep. Don Beyer railed against President Trump, stating his recent tariffs are “destroying our economy.”

“Donald Trump says he wants to ‘Make America Great Again,’” he said to a crowd in Washington on Saturday. “But he is going to make America the 1930s again.”

“Herbet Hoover gave us the stock market crash of 1929,” Beyer added. “Donald Trump gave us the stock market crash of 2025.”

The Virginia Democrat went on to encourage listeners to take charge against the administration.

“We will be fearless, relentless, angry, smart, and we will be tireless,” he said.

 

Bangladesh and the US tariff storm

US President Donald Trump yesterday stood in the White House Rose Garden, pointing to an oversized placard with details of levies he is set to impose on imports from America’s trading partners. Trump dramatically ratcheted up his trade war. Bangladesh is among those countries whose labor-intensive export industries will receive a heavy blow.

Under Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs” policy, Bangladeshi exports to the United States now face a 37% levy — a move that threatens to strain trade with its largest single-country export market.

Trump has targeted nations, accusing them of putting disproportionate barriers to American exports. He imposed 10% universal tariffs on all US trade partners as well as additional, heavier duties on 60 countries he deemed the “worst offenders” of unfair trade practices. The universal tariffs will start on Saturday before the country-specific, higher reciprocal tariff takes effect from April 09. 2025.

The penalties unleashed turbulence across world markets and drew condemnation from many countries facing the end of an era of trade liberalization that has shaped the global order for decades.

While significant for Bangladesh, this move aligns with similarly stringent tariffs across the region, suggesting a broader strategic intent rather than targeting Bangladesh alone.

Notably, Vietnam, a close competitor for Bangladesh in the international garment trade, faces an even higher tariff of 46%, despite the Southeast Asian nation’s proactive attempts to mitigate tariff threats by cutting levies on American goods and pledging to increase imports of significant US products.

However, this offers little comfort to Bangladesh. Its economy, heavily reliant on exports to the United States, particularly garments, now faces headwinds.

“For countries like Bangladesh and other developing countries, this shift poses significant challenges, as they may face tougher economic conditions under such an uncertain regime,” Professor Selim Raihan, executive director of the South Asian Network on Economic Modeling, said.

Industry experts in Dhaka fear the sharp increase in tariffs could erode Bangladesh’s competitive edge, potentially diverting US buyers to other countries. Still, the US will remain Bangladesh’s largest single-country export destination, with apparel constituting about 90% of total exports to American markets.

Bangladesh’s exports to the US rose 1.1%YoY to US$8.4 billion in 2024, driven largely by the country’s dominant garment sector, according to data from the United States Trade Representative.

Bangladesh’s imports from the US totaled US$2.2 billion in 2024, a 1.5% decrease from the previous year. As a result, the US trade deficit with Bangladesh widened to US$6.2 billion — a figure that determined the new tariff rate.

“The immediate priority is damage control, as the reciprocal tariffs are already in effect, with no time allowed for a smooth transition. Even goods currently en route to the US will be subject to the new tariffs, raising the critical question, who will bear the cost?” said Zahid Hussain, a former lead economist of the World Bank’s Dhaka office.

Bangladesh’s strategy should aim to shift the tariff burden onto buyers, according to Hussain. “A key advantage is that buyers have limited alternatives, as many of our competitors face similar or even higher reciprocal tariffs. However, fierce competition among [local] sellers poses a significant challenge, enabling wholesale buyers like Walmart and Target to pass the tariff costs onto us,” he said.

To counter this, it is crucial for sellers to collectively agree not to accept a reduction in prices to offset the tariff. The relevant association must closely monitor renegotiated prices and enforce penalties for non-compliance with this agreed position, Hussain said.

“Additionally, we should explore the possibility of qualifying our exports for duty exemptions by emphasizing their status as low-priced essential products.”

Analysts point out this escalation is part of broader regional trade realignment, as neighboring India and Pakistan also face reciprocal tariffs of 27% and 29%, respectively.

India’s export competitiveness would be less impacted than that of key rivals due to its position in the middle of the tariff rates, said the country’s industry bodies and the Federation of Indian Export Organizations.

The tariffs would remain in effect until Trump determined that the “threat posed by the trade deficit and underlying non-reciprocal treatment is satisfied, resolved, or mitigated,” the White House said.

Courtesy: The Bangladesh Chronicle

 

 

Pakistan: Navigating an Uncertain Global Order

The world is undergoing a profound shift toward protectionism and unpredictability. Global institutions are weakening, long-standing norms are eroding, and power dynamics are replacing cooperative frameworks. In this volatile environment, Pakistan must stay alert and prepare for the challenges ahead.

This transformation is already in motion. US President Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs signaled a move away from multilateralism. The shift toward unilateralism and economic nationalism has been ushered in. The rules-based global order, which once promoted free trade and transparency, is on the decline.

For decades, the US championed institutions like the WTO, enabling developing countries, including Pakistan, to engage in global trade under shared rules. Now, the rise of "reciprocal tariffs" and deal-making based on narrow self-interest marks a rejection of that system. In such an environment, even close allies are vulnerable.

This shift is especially alarming for countries like Pakistan. Larger powers may use economic tools or coercion to advance their agendas, sidelining smaller economies. A coordinated international backlash to protectionist policies is likely. While Pakistan may avoid retaliation, others might not, raising the specter of a global trade war.

Trade wars have historically led to severe economic disruptions. Pakistan, with low foreign exchange reserves and heavy reliance on institutions like the IMF, lacks the resilience to absorb such shocks. Unlike wealthier nations, it cannot offer major stimulus measures or safety nets.

Thus, Pakistani policymakers must proactively engage with global powers, diversify trade relationships, and strengthen internal governance. Strategic partnerships with like-minded nations and regional initiatives like CPEC are essential, but overreliance on any one partner is risky. A multi-vector foreign policy is key.

Domestically, political stability and unity are crucial. A fragmented leadership weakens Pakistan’s ability to respond to global shifts. The world order we knew is unlikely to return soon. Only countries that are agile, united, and forward-looking will succeed.

Pakistan must not be passive. With vigilance, decisive leadership, and strategic focus, it can navigate this turbulent global landscape and secure a stable future.

US dollar faces crisis of confidence

In times of market panic investors tend to rush to the safety of greenback, but when stocks swooned in response to US tariffs this week, they ran away from it. Investors say it's a sign that the greenback’s global standing may be eroding.

There is perception that greenback has an inherent competitive advantage. It's backed by the world's largest economy, the deepest capital markets and an established rule of law. There is no real alternative in the near term. However, after the trade war initiated by Donald Trump the creation of an alternative currency seems certain.

The dollar, for decades a safe haven, on Thursday fell about 1.7% in its biggest daily drop since November 2022, after President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on imports at levels not seen since the early 1900s. Stock markets also tanked, as tariffs ignited recession worries.

In interviews and published markets commentaries, many investors and analysts pointed to the Trump administration for the anomaly. Its protectionist policies, upending of the global economic order in place since World War II, and a growing US debt pile have been chipping away at the dollar's appeal, they say. Left unchecked, a crisis of confidence in the dollar could also undermine its position as the world's reserve currency, they added.

"What we're seeing today is a further indication that the structure and nature of the US dollar’s relationship to global markets has changed," said Thierry Wizman, global foreign exchange and rates strategist at Macquarie in New York.

"There's an underlying basis for this, which is the changing role of the US in the world."

Any erosion of the dollar's standing as a safe-haven is bad news for investors and policymakers - at least in the near term.

For investors, who have piled trillions of dollars into buoyant US markets in recent decades, a sharp dollar fall could result in higher interest rates for longer. That's because price pressures at home could make it harder for the Federal Reserve to cut rates.

A rapid strengthening of currencies against the dollar is a headache for other central banks navigating a weaker economic outlook, as it makes their exports more expensive and potentially harder for them to revive growth. The euro, for example, just had its best day against the greenback in more than two years.

The recent depreciation in the dollar showed that concerns about the currency's status had "left footprints in financial markets already," Sweden's central bank deputy governor Per Jansson said at an event in London on Tuesday.

"If the dollar's status would change, that would be a big change for the world economy ... and would basically create a mess," he told Reuters afterwards. "I really do not hope the US goes there."

 

 

OPEC+ agree to ramp up output in May

According to the Saudi Gazette, Saudi Arabia, Russia and six other OPEC+ countries, agreed on Thursday to boost oil supply in May 2025. The OPEC+ countries, which also include Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria, and Oman, agreed to raise production by 411,000 barrels per day (bpd) in May.

The OPEC+ countries had been scheduled to raise output by 135,000 bpd in May as part of a plan to gradually unwind their most recent layer of output cuts. But after a meeting of the eight countries held virtually on Thursday, the group announced it would boost output by 411,000 bpd in May. OPEC attributed this to continuing healthy market fundamentals and the positive market outlook.

The group emphasized that these gradual increases could be paused or reversed depending on market conditions, with the flexibility intended to help stabilize oil prices. "This comprises the increment originally planned for May in addition to two monthly increments," OPEC said in a statement referring to the volume. "The gradual increases may be paused or reversed subject to evolving market conditions," it said.

The OPEC+ meeting on Thursday reviewed global market conditions and outlook. "In view of the continuing healthy market fundamentals and the positive market outlook, and in accordance with the decision agreed upon on December 05, 2024, and subsequently reaffirmed on March 03, 2025, to start a gradual and flexible return of the 2.2 million barrels per day voluntary adjustments starting from April 01, 2025, the eight countries will implement a production adjustment of 411000 bpd, equivalent to three monthly increments, in May 2025," the statement said.

"The gradual increases may be paused or reversed subject to evolving market conditions, and this flexibility will allow the group to continue to support oil market stability. The eight OPEC+ countries also noted that this measure will provide an opportunity for the participating countries to accelerate their compensation," the statement noted.

The OPEC+ countries reaffirmed their commitment to the voluntary production adjustments agreed at the 53rd JMMC meeting on April 03, 2024. They also confirmed their intention to fully compensate any overproduced volume since January 2024 and to submit updated front-loaded compensation plans to the OPEC Secretariat by April 15, 2025.

Persian Gulf Arabs oppose US attack on Iran

In a commentary on March 31, the British newspaper the Guardian wrote an article saying that the Persian Gulf Arab states are opposed to a possible US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, believing it will make the Middle East region more insecure.

“Widespread rejection in the Persian Gulf of a US-inspired attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is a relatively new factor in the equation, and Trump’s plan to reportedly visit Saudi Arabia on his first overseas trip means he may personally hear strong opposition to an attack on Iran from the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman,” the Guardian wrote.

The following is the text of the article titled “Trump’s bombing threat over Iran nuclear program prompts backlash”:

Iran has reacted with outrage after Donald Trump said the country will be bombed if it does not accept US demands to constrain its nuclear program.

The US president said on Sunday that if Iran “Doesn’t make a deal, there will be bombing. It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.”

Trump’s latest threat – more explicit and violent than any made before – came after he sent a letter to Iran, as yet undisclosed, offering to hold talks on its nuclear program. Iran had sent a reply to the US stating it was willing to hold indirect talks, officials confirmed.

Esmail Baghaei, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson, said of Trump’s threat, “The explicit threat of bombing Iran by the head of a country is clear contradiction to the essence of international peace and security.

“Such a threat is a gross violation of the United Nations charter and a violation of the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards regime. Violence brings violence and peace creates peace, America can choose.”

The Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a sceptic about talks with the US, said Iran was not overly concerned by Trump’s words. “We consider it unlikely that such harm would come from outside. However, if any malicious act does occur, it will certainly be met with a firm
and decisive response,” he said.

Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Revolutionary Guard’s aerospace force, said, “Someone in glass houses does not throw stones at anyone,” adding: “The Americans have at least 10 bases with 50,000 troops in the region, meaning they are sitting in a glass house.”

But the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, clearly had authority to keep the prospect of talks alive, saying Iran had already replied to the Trump letter through intermediaries in Oman and adding he knew the Iranian letter had now reached the US. Araghchi said direct talks were not possible while the US continued to threaten and bully Iran.

Trump sent his original letter proposing talks through the United Arab Emirates’ senior diplomatic envoy, Anwar Gargash.

Trump has set a deadline of mid-May for progress to be made, but a longer deadline also exists of mid-August, by which time the original 2015 nuclear agreement will largely expire and a European response will be required. Trump took the US out of that agreement in 2018, a move widely seen as a mistake since it led Iran to speed up its uranium enrichment program.

That Iran sent its reply through Oman, its traditional chosen mediator, rather than the UAE may suggest Iran does not want the UAE – which has normalized relations with Israel – to act as intermediaries. The US and Iran had held indirect talks on reviving the nuclear agreement under the Biden administration in Vienna from 2021, but they fizzled out, and all sides agreed the indirect nature of the talks ate up time, something Trump is reluctant to offer Iran.

Some of the ground will have been covered in four rounds of parallel talks held between Iranian and European negotiators in Geneva.

Tehran has not commented on how broadly the Trump letter went in demanding concessions from Iran. But the Iranian ambassador to Iraq, Mohammad Kazem al-Sadegh, indicated the US was seeking talks that went wider than the nuclear program, saying the letter called for the disbandment of the Iranian-backed Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces militia.

The US administration has been divided over whether to simply demand Iran expose its civil nuclear program to fuller international inspection, or make a wider set of demands including a complete end to its nuclear program and an Iranian commitment to stop backing resistance groups in the Middle East such as Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen.

The US national security adviser, Mike Waltz, has called for the “full dismantlement” of the Iranian nuclear program, something Tehran rejects. By contrast, Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, spoke only of restricting Iran’s nuclear program, something Iran has been willing to accept since 2015 so long as it leads to a lifting of sanctions on the Iranian economy.

Kamal Kharazi, the head of Iran’s Strategic Council on Foreign Relations and sometimes touted as a chief negotiator, has accused the US of operating a psychological war by adopting a policy of “either war or negotiation”.

Widespread rejection in the Persian Gulf of a US-inspired attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is a relatively new factor in the equation, and Trump’s plan to reportedly visit Saudi Arabia on his first overseas trip means he may personally hear strong opposition to an attack on Iran from the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman.

The Persian Gulf’s opposition to an attack on Iran is based not on close ideological affinity with Iran, but on a sense the region must avoid further political instability.