The Unraveling of an Order
The crisis that has engulfed the Gaza Strip is more than a regional conflict; it is a stark symptom of a failing global system. The nearly two-decade-long encirclement, punctuated by devastating military assaults, has culminated in a catastrophe that lays bare the profound fissures in the post-World War II international order. This is not simply a war that erupted spontaneously but the foreseeable result of a deliberate, long-term policy of isolation and what United Nations observers have called "de-development."
This strategy, which has systematically dismantled Gaza's economy and society, was enabled by a fragmented and paralyzed international community where geopolitical self-interest consistently overrides legal and moral obligations. It has led to a humanitarian collapse of historic proportions, triggering an unprecedented legal reckoning at the world's highest courts. The Gaza encirclement is the story of how a population was caged, how a territory was methodically rendered unlivable, and how the very principles of international law and human dignity began to unravel under the weight of diplomatic impunity.
To understand this crisis is to analyze its interconnected failures: a humanitarian disaster manufactured by policy; a geopolitical paralysis that provides diplomatic cover; a legal system challenged to its core; and a political process devoid of hope. This article will trace the anatomy of the blockade, from its strategic origins to its comprehensive mechanics. It will detail the staggering human cost of this policy. It will dissect the geopolitical landscape of complicity and condemnation that allowed the crisis to fester. It will then examine the historic legal battles that have shattered decades of impunity. Finally, it will assess the dimming prospects for any viable political solution, revealing a trajectory not toward peace, but toward a permanent state of conflict and the continued erosion of the global order itself.
The Anatomy of the Encirclement: A Cage Forged by Policy
The blockade of Gaza, formally imposed in 2007, was not a spontaneous reaction to a single event. It was the calculated activation of a system of control constructed years earlier. Its origins lie in a fundamental shift in Israeli strategy: the transformation from a costly direct occupation to a more manageable and less visible system of external siege, creating what many observers have since described as an "open-air prison." The path to this encirclement was paved with strategic decisions that hollowed out Gaza’s autonomy long before the first gate was officially sealed. Understanding this history is crucial to analyzing its devastating consequences.
From Occupation to Siege (1967-2005)
Israel’s capture of the Gaza Strip from Egypt in the 1967 Six-Day War initiated a period of direct military occupation. Over the subsequent decades, Israel established over 20 Jewish settlements within the densely populated territory. Gaza remained a focal point of Palestinian resistance, culminating in the First Intifada, which erupted in the territory in 1987 and saw the establishment of the Islamic militant group Hamas. This long period of direct control proved costly and resource-intensive for Israel.
A pivotal moment in the history of the blockade arrived in 2005 with the Israeli "disengagement." Under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Israel unilaterally withdrew all its troops and dismantled the settlements, uprooting roughly 9,000 Israeli settlers. This move was widely framed as the end of the Israeli occupation of Gaza, a step towards peace. However, a deeper analysis reveals it as a strategic restructuring of control. While withdrawing its ground forces, Israel crucially retained effective power over all of Gaza's external access points—its land borders, its seashore, and its airspace.
This was not an abdication of control but a tactical maneuver. The shift from an internal military presence to an external siege created a more manageable and less visible system of domination. It allowed Israel to distance itself from the administration of a large, hostile population while holding the keys to its survival. This maneuver pre-emptively established the physical and legal infrastructure that could later be used to enforce a full blockade. It was a system of external siege in waiting, needing only a political justification to be fully activated. The mechanisms to sever Gaza’s economic and social lifelines were now firmly in place, ready to be tightened at will.
The Justification and the Seal (2006-2007)
That political justification arrived with the Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006. In a result that stunned international observers, Hamas won a decisive majority. The international community’s reaction was swift and punitive. The Quartet—comprising the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations—conditioned future assistance on three principles: Hamas must renounce violence, recognize Israel, and accept previously signed agreements. When Hamas refused, international aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) was largely cut off. Concurrently, Israel began withholding millions of dollars in monthly tax revenues that it collected on behalf of the PA, further crippling the newly elected government.
These severe external pressures exacerbated simmering internal Palestinian tensions, which erupted into violent factional fighting between Hamas and its long-dominant rival, Fatah. In June 2007, Hamas seized full military control of the Gaza Strip in a short but bloody conflict, expelling Fatah officials. This event provided the immediate pretext for the formal imposition of the blockade. Citing the collapse of the PA's security apparatus and the rise of a hostile entity on its border, Israel and Egypt sealed their crossings with Gaza. On June 12, 2007, Israel closed the Karni crossing, which had been Gaza's primary commercial artery.
The sanctions that had been in place for a year were now dramatically tightened into a comprehensive siege. The severity was immediate and drastic. The number of truck transits carrying essential goods, which had averaged over 10,000 per month before the blockade, was slashed to a fraction of that figure. Egypt's cooperation was crucial, driven by its own national security fears of militancy spilling into the Sinai Peninsula and its deep political opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas's parent organization. The combined effect of these policies was the creation of an "iron cage" around Gaza's inhabitants. The cage was locked.
The Human Cost: A Manufactured Catastrophe
The nearly two-decade-long blockade, punctuated by repeated and devastating military assaults, has inflicted a catastrophic toll on the 2.2 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The humanitarian crisis is not an unforeseen consequence of conflict but the predictable result of a sustained policy of isolation and economic strangulation. The statistics paint a grim picture of systemic collapse, a society pushed to the brink and then over the edge. Human rights organizations and international bodies have presented overwhelming evidence that this suffering is not merely collateral damage but a core component of a deliberate strategy, a manufactured catastrophe designed to control a population by dismantling its ability to survive independently. The result is a landscape of ruin affecting every facet of life, from the economy and infrastructure to public health and the deep psychological trauma of an entire people.
Economic De-development
The economy of Gaza has not merely stagnated under the blockade; it has been actively and systematically dismantled. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) describes this process as "de-development," a targeted reversal of economic progress that has left Gaza’s economy in ruins. The divergence from the West Bank is stark: in 1994, Gaza's GDP per capita was on par with the West Bank's; by 2022, it had plummeted to just a quarter of its counterpart's level. Between 2006 and 2022, Gaza's real GDP per capita shrank by a staggering 27%. The conflict that began in October 2023 pushed this teetering economy into absolute freefall. In the first quarter of 2024 alone, Gaza's GDP contracted by an almost unbelievable 86%. By the end of January 2024, the World Bank and the UN estimated that the cost of damage to critical infrastructure had reached approximately $18.5 billion—a figure equivalent to 97% of the entire combined GDP of the West Bank and Gaza in 2022.
This economic implosion has created a society defined by unemployment and poverty. Even before the latest escalation, unemployment in Gaza was among the highest in the world, standing at nearly 47%, with youth unemployment at a catastrophic 64%. By December 2023, the overall unemployment rate had soared to an almost unimaginable 79.3%. The result is a population almost entirely dependent on external aid for survival. As of 2022, over 81% of individuals in Gaza were living below the national poverty line. By mid-2024, the World Bank estimated that close to 100% of Gaza's population was living in poverty. The number of Palestinian refugees requiring food assistance from the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) ballooned from 80,000 in the year 2000 to 1.1 million by 2022—a 1,324% increase that illustrates the systematic stripping away of economic self-sufficiency and the creation of a state of engineered dependency.
A Method of War: Starvation and Disease
The dire economic indicators translate into a daily struggle for survival for the people of Gaza, where human rights organizations have concluded that deprivation itself is being used as a method of war. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have stated that Israel is using the starvation of civilians as a weapon, a grave breach of international law. This is achieved through several means: a near-total blockade on commercial goods; the systematic destruction of Gaza's food-producing capacity, including agricultural land, greenhouses, and fishing boats; and the implementation of what Amnesty calls a "deadly, dehumanizing and ineffective militarized 'aid' scheme." This system, which replaced the dismantled UN distribution network, has turned aid distribution points into "death traps." Desperate civilians seeking food and water have been repeatedly targeted by Israeli forces, with the UN reporting over 1,000 Palestinians killed near these sites. By September 2024, an alarming 90% of children under two and 95% of pregnant and breastfeeding women in Gaza were suffering from extreme food poverty.
This is compounded by the decimation of Gaza's water and sanitation infrastructure. Long before the recent escalation, 81% of the water extracted from Gaza's over-tapped aquifer was unfit for human consumption according to WHO standards. The conflict has reduced the available water supply to less than 5 liters per person per day, far below the minimum required for survival. Human Rights Watch has documented the deliberate destruction of major water facilities and concluded that Israeli authorities are intentionally depriving Palestinians of water, an act it argues amounts to the crime against humanity of extermination. This collapse has triggered a public health disaster, with hundreds of thousands of cases of water-borne diseases like hepatitis A and diarrhea reported. Gaza's healthcare system has been systematically dismantled alongside its water supply. Of Gaza's 36 hospitals, only 17 remained even partly functional by the end of 2024, themselves overwhelmed and lacking basic supplies. The destruction of Gaza's sole power plant and the blockade on fuel have left these facilities without electricity to run life-saving equipment, leading to a 300% increase in miscarriages and leaving over 100,000 wounded people with little hope of adequate care.
The Decimation of a Society
The physical destruction extends to every pillar of society, suggesting a long-term objective of rendering Gaza uninhabitable. Remote sensing analysis reveals that 63% of all buildings in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed. This includes 84% of health facilities, 92% of primary roads, and, in a devastating blow to the future of its people, all of Gaza's universities. This level of destruction, combined with mass displacement orders that have uprooted nearly the entire population multiple times, has created an environment of chaos and despair. This breakdown of civil order is a foreseeable consequence of Israeli policy. By dismantling the governing authority of Hamas and the aid distribution capacity of UNRWA, and by creating conditions of extreme desperation, a chaotic "race to reach food" was the inevitable result. This chaos is then cited by Israeli officials as a reason for their own military-controlled aid schemes, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of crisis and control. The impact on vulnerable groups is immeasurable. People with disabilities have lost their assistive devices in airstrikes and face insurmountable barriers to fleeing or accessing scarce resources. The psychological trauma inflicted on an entire generation of children, who have known nothing but blockade and war, will have consequences for decades to come. The crisis in Gaza is thus not just a temporary emergency but the culmination of a long-term strategy of containment that has now escalated into a full-blown, manufactured catastrophe.
The Geopolitics of Paralysis: Complicity and Condemnation
The international response to the crisis in Gaza has been characterized by deep divisions, strategic calculations, and a significant gap between rhetoric and action. The failure to forge a unified international front to halt the violence and alleviate the humanitarian catastrophe is not due to a lack of information, but rather a clash of geopolitical interests, domestic political pressures, and historical allegiances. The notion that world powers are simply "turning a blind eye" is a misnomer; their stances reflect conscious and deliberate policy choices that range from active complicity to strategic opportunism. This geopolitical paralysis has not only enabled the continuation of the crisis but has also exposed the deep hypocrisies within the so-called "rules-based international order," fatally undermining its legitimacy on the global stage.
The Unwavering Ally
The United States has served as Israel's principal international patron since its founding, a relationship that has solidified into a strategic alliance defined by near-unconditional military and diplomatic support. In the current conflict, this has manifested in the continuous supply of advanced weaponry—including the bombs used in attacks on densely populated areas—and the use of its veto power at the UN Security Council to block multiple resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire. This policy is underpinned by a long-standing geopolitical strategy that views Israel as a cornerstone of US influence in the Middle East—a reliable military partner in a volatile region and a bulwark against Iranian influence. Powerful domestic political forces, notably pro-Israel lobbying groups, also exert significant influence on policymakers across the political spectrum. However, this steadfast support creates a fundamental and glaring contradiction. The US administration simultaneously calls for increased humanitarian aid, the protection of civilian lives, and a viable two-state solution, while providing the military means and diplomatic immunity that enable Israeli policies—such as the comprehensive blockade and relentless settlement expansion—that directly and systematically undermine these very goals. This has led to a strained and incoherent policy of attempting to manage a crisis it is simultaneously fueling.
A Divided West
The European Union presents a facade of unity that masks deep and debilitating internal divisions. Officially, the bloc calls for an immediate ceasefire, unimpeded humanitarian access, and a lasting peace based on the two-state solution. It has imposed sanctions on violent Israeli settlers and possesses an internal report from its own diplomatic service concluding that Israel has violated the human rights clause of its foundational trade pact. However, the EU has been unable to translate these findings into collective action. The paralysis stems from the conflicting positions of its member states. Germany's policy is uniquely shaped by its "Staatsraison" (reason of state), a post-Holocaust commitment to Israel's security that makes it profoundly reluctant to join international condemnations of Israeli policy. This often puts it at odds with a growing bloc of opposition led by France, Spain, and Ireland. These nations have adopted a far more critical stance, imposing their own sanctions, formally recognizing the State of Palestine, and seeking to join South Africa's ICJ case. The United Kingdom's policy has also visibly shifted from "unequivocal" support under its previous government to a more critical tone under its new one. This change is a direct response to intense domestic pressure, including massive anti-war protests and a significant rebellion within the ruling Labour Party itself. Yet this shift remains incomplete, exposing the deep-seated tension between legal and moral considerations and the powerful inertia of the US-UK special relationship.
The Eastern Opportunists & The Global South
For Russia and China, the Gaza conflict is less a regional crisis to be solved and more a geopolitical opportunity to be exploited. Both powers have positioned themselves as champions of the Palestinian cause and the Global South, using international forums to condemn Israeli actions and, more pointedly, the United States for enabling them. This rhetoric serves to deflect international attention from their own military actions in places like Ukraine and to portray the West's "rules-based international order" as a hypocritical tool of hegemony. However, while they criticize the US-led security architecture in the region, they are also "content to free-ride" on it, avoiding the costs and risks of providing a meaningful security alternative. Their response highlights a desire to benefit from the decline of US influence without a willingness to underwrite a new global order. In contrast, a more assertive Global South has emerged with a different agenda. India walks a tightrope with its "de-hyphenation" policy, striving to balance its historical backing of Palestine with its position as Israel's primary arms purchaser. This delicate act is evident in its abstention from voting on crucial Gaza resolutions. In stark contrast, other nations have adopted a definitive stance on the issue. Brazil, under President Lula, has condemned Israel's actions as "genocide" and joined the legal challenge at the ICJ. It is South Africa, however, that has taken the lead, moving beyond rhetoric to formally challenge Israel's actions through international legal mechanisms, positioning itself as a leading voice for accountability and international law.
The Regional Chessboard
The response of Middle Eastern states has been shaped less by pan-Arab solidarity and more by the cold calculus of national interest, regime survival, and a deep-seated strategic rivalry with Iran. The 2020 Abraham Accords, which saw the UAE and Bahrain normalize relations with Israel, explicitly sidelined the Palestinian issue. This move signaled that Palestinian rights could be bypassed, emboldening Israeli hardliners and creating a leadership vacuum that Iran and its "Axis of Resistance" have actively filled. Key powers like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are now caught in a complex balancing act. Before the conflict, Saudi Arabia was on a clear path to normalization in exchange for a US defense pact. The war made this politically toxic, forcing Riyadh to publicly insist on an "irreversible" path to a Palestinian state—a condition the current Israeli government rejects. The UAE, while preserving its strategic ties to Israel, has been forced to publicly condemn Israeli actions to manage domestic and regional opinion. This has left a void filled by vocal critics like Turkey, which has halted all trade with Israel, and Iran, which has used the conflict to rally anti-Western sentiment and demonstrate its regional power through the actions of its proxies, most notably the Houthi attacks on global shipping.
 |
| Published by Aditya Basu - Grab Your Copy now! |
The Legal Battlefield: A Reckoning with Impunity
The Gaza conflict is being fought not only with weapons but also with legal arguments on the world's most prominent stages. The unprecedented scale of death and destruction has triggered a series of legal challenges that accuse Israel of violating the most fundamental tenets of international law. For decades, Israel has largely been shielded from international legal accountability, primarily by the diplomatic protection of the United States at the UN Security Council. The current proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), however, represent the most significant challenge to this impunity in decades. Supported by a growing number of states from the Global South and vociferous advocacy from human rights groups, these legal battles have become a proxy for the broader geopolitical struggle over the conflict's narrative and legitimacy. Regardless of the final verdicts, which may take years, the legal process itself is creating a permanent historical record and forcing a global reckoning with the applicability of international law.
The Laws of War on Trial
The conduct of any armed conflict is governed by International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also known as the laws of war. Central to the legal debate over operations in Gaza are the core IHL principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. The principle of distinction requires parties to a conflict to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and between military objectives and civilian objects; attacks may only be directed at the former. The Israeli government argues that its operations adhere to this principle, stating that its target is Hamas, not the Palestinian people. It further contends that Hamas intentionally embeds itself within the civilian population, using schools, hospitals, and homes for military purposes, thereby causing these sites to lose their protected status under IHL.
However, critics and human rights organizations argue that the sheer scale of the devastation points to a failure to adhere to this principle. With over 59,000 Palestinians killed, more than half of whom are women and children, and with evidence of direct airstrikes on residential buildings with no apparent military target, they contend that many of Israel's attacks are either indiscriminate or constitute the deliberate targeting of civilians. Similarly, the principle of proportionality, which prohibits attacks where the expected civilian harm would be excessive in relation to the direct military advantage anticipated, is under intense scrutiny. Israel states that it has made extensive efforts to warn civilians through leaflets, phone calls, and mass evacuation orders. Critics, however, argue these measures are themselves a violation of IHL. Mass evacuation orders affecting over a million people, with impossible deadlines and directing them to so-called "humanitarian zones" that are themselves bombed, do not constitute effective warnings but rather amount to forcible transfer, a war crime. The widespread destruction of entire neighborhoods and the razing of Gaza's most productive agricultural land go far beyond any conceivable military necessity and indicate an unlawful aim, such as rendering the area uninhabitable.
The Crime of Crimes: South Africa v. Israel
The most explosive legal charge against Israel is that of genocide. In December 2023, South Africa instituted proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice, the UN's highest court, alleging violations of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. South Africa's 84-page application is built on two pillars: genocidal acts and genocidal intent. It argues that Israel is committing genocidal acts as defined in the Convention, including killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction. The evidence cited includes the mass killing of Palestinians, the forced displacement of nearly the entire population, and the comprehensive blockade of food, water, and medicine, which has created conditions of famine.
Crucially, to prove genocide, one must demonstrate "dolus specialis"—the specific intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part. South Africa argues this intent is evident from the public statements of numerous high-ranking Israeli officials, including government ministers and military leaders, which it claims constitute direct and public incitement to commit genocide. Israel has vehemently rejected the charge, calling it "baseless" and a "gross distortion". Its legal team argues that Israel's intent is not to destroy the Palestinian people but to exercise its legitimate right to self-defense against Hamas, which it designates as a genocidal terrorist organization. It contends that South Africa has taken official statements out of context and is ignoring Israel's efforts to mitigate civilian harm, framing the case as a politically motivated attempt to "weaponize" the term genocide and function as the "legal arm of Hamas". In a series of orders starting in January 2024, the ICJ has found it "plausible" that the rights of Palestinians under the Genocide Convention are at risk. While not ordering a full cessation of military operations, the Court has imposed legally binding provisional measures, ordering Israel to prevent all genocidal acts, punish incitement, and enable the provision of urgently needed humanitarian aid.
Apartheid and Extermination
The legal challenges extend beyond the current hostilities. For years, leading international and Israeli human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have published detailed legal analyses concluding that Israel's overarching system of control over Palestinians constitutes the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution. These findings are based on a systematic review of Israeli laws and policies in both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which they argue create a system of institutionalized discrimination and oppression against Palestinians for the benefit of Jewish Israelis. Human Rights Watch stated in its 2025 World Report that the events since October 2023 have dramatically worsened this situation. It argues that the deliberate deprivation of food and water and the forcible displacement of nearly all of Gaza's population constitute not only war crimes but also atrocity crimes, including the crime against humanity of extermination. The convergence of these legal battles—over the conduct of the war, the charge of genocide, and the underlying system of alleged apartheid—represents a profound moment of reckoning.
A Political Horizon Lost
Amid the catastrophic violence and humanitarian collapse, the search for a viable political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become more urgent, yet more distant, than ever. The international community continues to officially endorse traditional frameworks, but a critical analysis reveals that the facts on the ground, coupled with a profound lack of political will, may have rendered them obsolete. This has created a dangerous political vacuum, where the absence of a credible peace process allows the dynamics of conflict and occupation to become further entrenched, pointing not toward a peaceful resolution but toward a permanent state of violence and the continued unraveling of the global institutions designed to prevent such a catastrophe.
The Death of the Two-State Solution?
The two-state solution has been the cornerstone of international peacemaking efforts for decades, remaining the official policy of the United States, the European Union, the UN, and the Arab League. However, there is a growing consensus among analysts that this solution, while desirable in theory, may no longer be practically achievable. The single greatest physical obstacle is the vast and ever-expanding network of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. With a settler population now exceeding 600,000, these settlements have fragmented Palestinian territory into disconnected enclaves, creating irreversible "facts on the ground" designed to prevent the creation of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state. Beyond the physical barriers, there is a profound crisis of political will. Successive right-wing Israeli governments have been openly hostile to the concept, while on the Palestinian side, political division and a loss of faith in a failed process have eroded support. The international community's continued rhetorical adherence to the two-state solution, despite overwhelming evidence of its impracticality, is a form of policy inertia—a diplomatic placeholder that substitutes for genuine policy action rather than a blueprint for it.
No Viable Alternatives
As the two-state solution has faded, discussion of alternatives has grown, though they are even less plausible. A democratic, one-state solution granting equal rights to all is a non-starter for the vast majority of Israeli Jews, who see it as a demographic threat to the state's Jewish character, and for most Palestinians, as it would mean abandoning their aspiration for national sovereignty. The confederation model, which proposes two states with a shared government, is also unviable as it would require an even greater degree of mutual trust and cooperation than the two-state solution—a trust that simply does not exist. The stark reality is that the current trajectory is not toward any peaceful solution but toward the entrenchment of a de facto one-state reality of permanent occupation, inequality, and violence.
Final Synthesis
The crisis in Gaza is a stark manifestation of a fracturing global order. The findings of this analysis paint a grim picture of interconnected failures—humanitarian, geopolitical, legal, and political—that have created a state of perpetual catastrophe for Palestinians and systemic erosion for the global institutions designed to maintain peace. Without a fundamental shift in policy from key international actors—moving from futile crisis management to the enforcement of legal accountability through concrete measures such as sanctions and arms embargoes—the cycle of suffering will continue. The long-term consequences are dire: the further radicalization of all parties, the continued destabilization of the Middle East, and the irreversible unraveling of the very principles of international law and human dignity that the global order was established to protect. The world is not merely witnessing a tragedy in Gaza; it is witnessing the failure of its own institutions and ideals.
Reference:
- A timeline of the Gaza Strip in modern history - PBS
- History of the Question of Palestine - UN
- Gaza humanitarian timeline since 2005 - IRIN
- Blockade of the Gaza Strip - Wikipedia
- Egypt Criticized for Gaza Blockade - Middle East Policy Council
- Humanitarian impact of 15 years of blockade - Unicef
- Why Egypt blocked the Global March to Gaza - Arab News
- Egypt's role in Gaza: More than a mediator
- Egypt's Delicate Balance
- Egypt opposes Israeli plans to move Palestinians towards its border
- Preliminary assessment of the economic impact - UNCTAD
- West Bank and Gaza: Selected Issues - IMF
- Impacts of the conflict - World Bank Report
- Damage to Gaza's Infrastructure - Joint World Bank, UN Report
- Gaza 15 years of blockade - UNRWA
- Israel's use of starvation evidence of genocide - Amnesty International
- Israel's Crime of Extermination - Human Rights Watch
- Human rights in Occupied Palestinian Territory - Amnesty International
- GAZA: Starvation or Gunfire - Amnesty International
- Brazil to join South Africa's ICJ 'genocide' case against Israel - Al Jazeera
Content Code: AHI
Article Editor: Aditya Basu
Creative Commons: N/A
 |
| Published by Aditya Basu - Grab Your Copy now! |
 |
 |
 |
|
The Creationz Collection by Aditya Basu
|
||
BLOG TAGS |
||
