Around 24,500 Palestinians have now been killed in Israeli attacks, with more than 61,500 injured. Millions more displaced people are living through what UN experts said again on Wednesday is an “unfolding genocide,” warning that “Gazans now make up 80% of all people facing famine or catastrophic hunger worldwide.” - AA, 18/1/2024
The International Court of Justice completed the hearing on 12/1/2024, and judges are deliberating and the decision will be announced soon. (See below the Press Release by ICJ) - the decision is really for temporary 'PROVISIONAL MEASURES' now to end the alleged acts of Genocide being afflicted on the people of Gaza..Palestinians. IT is not the FINAL DECISION as to whether Israel is guilty of acts of Genocide which will be made after the FULL HEARING of the case by the ICJ later on...
The QUICK DECISION is urgent - as any delay results in more death, injury and property destruction... SO, after 9(NINE) days, why have we not got a decision on PROVISIONAL Orders yet?
MALAYSIAGaza’s health ministry says 178 Palestinians were killed and 293 injured in the past 24 hours. - 21/1/2024
Whilst in Malaysia, the picture painted is that Anwar Ibrahim and its PH-led UNITY government are strongly committed to the Palestinian Cause against the gross human rights violations being perpetrated by the Zionist Israeli regime - it may not be so perceived by the media or the citizens of other nation States.
South Africa brought Israel before the International Court of Justice for violation of obligation of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It would have been great if Malaysia did, or NOW officially join South Africa in court, which it can still do now...
Malaysia has ratified/signed this Genocide Convention in 1994 but with an embarrassing reservation -
Reservation:
"That with reference to article IX of the Convention, before any dispute to which Malaysia is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of Malaysia is required in each case."Understanding:
"That the pledge to grant extradition in accordance with a state's laws and treaties in force found in article VII extends only to acts which are criminal under the law of both the requesting and the requested state." - UN Website - Info on Ratification and Reservations
What does this 'Reservation' imply - Well, it means if Malaysia is to be brought before the International Court of Justice for 'crimes' of GENOCIDE like how Israel has been, then Malaysia's prior agreement is required...
This Malaysian 'Reservation' is embarrassing - Does Malaysia fear being alleged of committing the crime of GENOCIDE? Does Malaysia plan to commit the crimes of GENOCIDE as stated in the Convention in the future? Is Malaysia committing crimes of GENOCIDE now?
Now, Prime Minister Anwar and this 'unity' coalition government led by Anwar's Pakatan Harapan must IMMEDIATELY REMOVE MALAYSIA'S RESERVATION in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
In any event, Malaysia can still apply to formally INTERVENE, and thus be a formal party in this action against Israel to end the 'genocide' activities against the people of Palestine ... but will it? Malaysia was one of the first countries to come out in support of South Africa's action, but will it go further and formally try to intervene...
Subsection 4. Intervention
Article 81
1. An application for permission to intervene under the terms of Article 62 of the Statute, signed in the manner provided for in Article 38, paragraph 3, of these Rules, shall be filed as soon as possible, and not later than the closure of the written proceedings. In exceptional circumstances, an application submitted at a later stage may however be admitted.
2. The application shall state the name of an agent. It shall specify the case to which it relates, and shall set out:
(a) the interest of a legal nature which the State applying to intervene considers may be affected by the decision in that case;
(b) the precise object of the intervention;
(c) any basis of jurisdiction which is claimed to exist as between the State applying to intervene and the parties to the case.
3. The application shall contain a list of the documents in support, which documents shall be attached.
Article 82
1. A State which desires to avail itself of the right of intervention conferred upon it by Article 63 of the Statute shall file a declaration to that effect, signed in the manner provided for in Article 38, paragraph 3, of these Rules. Such a declaration shall be filed as soon as possible, and not later than the date fixed for the opening of the oral proceedings. In exceptional circumstances a declaration submitted at a later stage may however be admitted.
2. The declaration shall state the name of an agent. It shall specify the case and the convention to which it relates and shall contain:
(a) particulars of the basis on which the declarant State considers itself a party to the convention;
(b) identification of the particular provisions of the convention the construction of which it considers to be in question;
(c) a statement of the construction of those provisions for which it contends;
(d) a list of the documents in support, which documents shall be attached.
3. Such a declaration may be filed by a State that considers itself a party to the convention the construction of which is in question but has not received the notification referred to in Article 63 of the Statute.
Article 83
1. Certified copies of the application for permission to intervene under Article 62 of the Statute, or of the declaration of intervention under Article 63 of the Statute, shall be communicated forthwith to the parties to the case, which shall be invited to furnish their written observations within a time-limit to be fixed by the Court or by the President if the Court is not sitting.
2. The Registrar shall also transmit copies to: (a) the Secretary-General of the United Nations; (b) the Members of the United Nations; (c) other States entitled to appear before the Court; (d) any other States which have been notified under Article 63 of the Statute.
Article 84
1. The Court shall decide whether an application for permission to intervene under Article 62 of the Statute should be granted, and whether an intervention under Article 63 of the Statute is admissible, as a matter of priority unless in view of the circumstances of the case the Court shall otherwise determine.
2. If, within the time-limit fixed under Article 83 of these Rules, an objection is filed to an application for permission to intervene, or to the admissibility of a declaration of intervention, the Court shall hear the State seeking to intervene and the parties before deciding.
Article 85
1. If an application for permission to intervene under Article 62 of the Statute is granted, the intervening State shall be supplied with copies of the pleadings and documents annexed and shall be entitled to submit a written statement within a time-limit to be fixed by the Court. A further time-limit shall be fixed within which the parties may, if they so desire, furnish their written observations on that statement prior to the oral proceedings. If the Court is not sitting, these time-limits shall be fixed by the President.
2. The time-limits fixed according to the preceding paragraph shall, so far as possible, coincide with those already fixed for the pleadings in the case.
3. The intervening State shall be entitled, in the course of the oral proceedings, to submit its observations with respect to the subject-matter of the intervention.
Article 86
1. If an intervention under Article 63 of the Statute is admitted, the intervening State shall be furnished with copies of the pleadings and documents annexed, and shall be entitled, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Court, or by the President if the Court is not sitting, to submit its written observations on the subject-matter of the intervention.
2. These observations shall be communicated to the parties and to any other State admitted to intervene. The intervening State shall be entitled, in the course of the oral proceedings, to submit its observations with respect to the subject-matter of the intervention. - Extract from the ICJ's RULES OF COURT
What happened at the ICJ - South Africa -vs- Israel > Well, according to the Press Release, the Court has begun deliberations and will announce its decision in the near future.
We HOPE that decision comes FAST - and it will finally end 'temporarily' acts of GENOCIDE. Be mindful, this is but the application for PROVISIONAL MEASURES to be put in place whilst the court then proceeds to hear the case in FULL - A Failure to give the provisional orders applied for may make the ICJ itself compliant in propagating GENOCIDE.
Are the Judges of the ICJ Independent - the fact that they require the approval of the UN Security Council(where any of the 5 permanent members can use their VETO to prevent approval) means that the Judges of ICJ are all approved by even the US and UK, countries that have been believed to be pro-Israel. So, should we be worried when it is a case against Israel?
The International Court of Justice is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms of office by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. These organs vote simultaneously but separately. In order to be elected, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of the votes in both bodies. This sometimes makes it necessary for a number of rounds of voting to be held....Once elected, a Member of the Court is a delegate neither of the government of his own country nor of that of any other State. Unlike most other organs of international organizations, the Court is not composed of representatives of governments. Members of the Court are independent judges...On leaving the Court, judges receive an annual pension which, after a nine-year term of office, is equal to half the annual base salary.
ICJ Press Release - 12/1/2024
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928
Website X YouTube LinkedIn
Press Release
Unofficial
No. 2024/3
12 January 2024
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)
Request for the indication of provisional measures - Conclusion of the public hearings held on Thursday 11 and Friday 12 January 2024
THE HAGUE, 12 January 2024.The public hearings on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by South Africa in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) concluded today.
The delegation of South Africa was led by HE Mr Vusimuzi Madonsela, Ambassador of the Republic of South Africa to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as Agent, and Mr Cornelius Scholtz,Legal Counsellor, Embassy of the Republic of South Africa in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as Co-Agent. The delegation of Israel was led by Mr Gilad Noam, Deputy Attorney General for International Law, Ministry of Justice of the State of Israel, Mr Tal Becker, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State of Israel, and Ms Tamar Kaplan Tourgeman, Principal Deputy Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State of Israel, as Co-Agents.
The Court will now begin its deliberation.
The Court’s decision will be delivered at a public sitting, the date of which will be announced in due course.
___________
Requests of the Parties
At the end of the hearings, the Agent of South Africa and the Co-Agent of Israel made the
following requests to the Court:
- 2 -
For South Africa:
“South Africa, as a State party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, respectfully requests the Court, as a matter of extreme urgency, pending the Court’s determination of this case on the merits, to indicate the following provisional measures in relation to the Palestinian people as a group protected by the Genocide Convention. These measures are directly linked to the rights that form the subject matter of South Africa’s dispute with Israel:
(1) The State of Israel shall immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza;(2) The State of Israel shall ensure that any military or irregular armed units which may be directed, supported or influenced by it, as well as any organisations and persons which may be subject to its control, direction or influence, take no steps in furtherance of the military operations referred to point (1) above;
(3) The Republic of South Africa and the State of Israel shall each, in accordance with their obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to the Palestinian people, take all reasonable measures within their power to prevent genocide;
(4) The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to the Palestinian people as a group protected by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, desist from the commission of any and all acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention, in particular:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the group;
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and
(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(5) The State of Israel shall, pursuant to point (4) (c) above, in relation to Palestinians, desist from, and take all measures within its power including the rescinding of relevant orders, of restrictions and/or of prohibitions to prevent:
(a) the expulsion and forced displacement from their homes;
(b) the deprivation of:
(i) access to adequate food and water;
(ii) access to humanitarian assistance, including access to adequate fuel, shelter, clothes, hygiene and sanitation;
(iii) medical supplies and assistance; and
(c) the destruction of Palestinian life in Gaza;
(6) The State of Israel shall, in relation to Palestinians, ensure that its military, as well as any irregular armed units or individuals which may be directed, supported or otherwise influenced by it and any organizations and persons which may be subject to its control, direction or influence, do not commit any acts described in (4) and (5) above, or engage in direct and public incitement to commit genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide, or complicity in genocide, and insofar as they do engage therein, that steps are taken towards their punishment pursuant to Articles I, II, III and IV of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;
(7) The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; to that end, the State of Israel shall not act to deny or otherwise restrict access by fact-finding missions, international mandates and other bodies to Gaza to assist in ensuring the preservation and retention of said evidence;(8) The State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order within one week, as from the date of this Order, and thereafter at such regular intervals as the Court shall order, until a final decision on the case is rendered by the Court, and that such reports shall be published by the Court;
(9) The State of Israel shall refrain from any action and shall ensure that no action is taken which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.”
For Israel:
“In accordance with Article 60, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, for the reasons given during the hearing of 12 January, 2024 and any other reasons the Court might deem appropriate, the State of Israel hereby requests the Court to:
(1) Reject the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by South Africa; and
(2) Remove the case from the General List.”
___________
History of the proceedings
On 29 December 2023, South Africa filed an Application instituting proceedings against Israel concerning alleged violations by Israel of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the “Genocide Convention”) in relation to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.The Application also contained a Request for the indication of provisional measures, pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Rules of Court. The Applicant requested the Court to indicate provisional measures in order to “protect against further, severe and irreparable harm to the rights of the Palestinian people under the Genocide Convention” and “to ensure Israel’s compliance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention not to engage in genocide, and to prevent and to punish genocide”.
Pursuant to Article 74 of the Rules of Court, “[a] request for the indication of provisional measures shall have priority over all other cases”.
Earlier press releases relating to this case are available on the Court’s website.
___________
The verbatim records of the hearings are available on the case page on the Court’s website.
___________
Note: The Court’s press releases are prepared by its Registry for information purposes only and do not constitute official documents.
___________
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.
It was established by the United Nations Charter in June 1945 and began its activities in April 1946.
The Court is composed of 15 judges elected for a nine-year term by the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations. The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague(Netherlands). The Court has a twofold role: first, to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States; and, second, to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized United Nations organs and agencies of the system.
___________
Information Department:
Ms Monique Legerman, First Secretary of the Court, Head of Department: +31 (0)70 302 2336
Ms Joanne Moore, Information Officer: +31 (0)70 302 2337
Mr Avo Sevag Garabet, Associate Information Officer: +31 (0)70 302 2394
Email: info@icj-cij.orgSource: ICJ Press Release 12/1/2024
Malaysia, with about RM1 Trillion Debt, may not be able to take up cases at the ICJ against Israel.
Anyway, there is news that Indonesia may ...be taking up a NEW case..
When will ICJ rule on South Africa’s genocide case against Israel?
Decision on South Africa’s request for provisional measures ‘could be expected in February, if not before,’ Italian lawyer Tiersisto Mariniello tells Anadolu
South Africa's genocide case against Israel begins at International Court of Justice ( FILE PHOTO - Anadolu Agency )
- Decision on South Africa’s request for
provisional measures ‘could be expected in February, if not before,’
Italian lawyer Tiersisto Mariniello tells Anadolu
- Decision
‘will come early because this is what the procedure requires,’ says
Mariniello, who is part of legal team representing Gaza victims at the
International Criminal Court
- Israeli defense ‘tried to
underestimate’ genocidal statements made by Israeli leaders, but South
Africans showed clearly how they were actually implemented in Gaza, says
Mariniello
SARAJEVO, Bosnia and Herzegovina
The death toll in the Gaza Strip continues to mount by the day as the world awaits a decision from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel.
Around 24,500 Palestinians have now been killed in Israeli attacks, with more than 61,500 injured. Millions more displaced people are living through what UN experts said again on Wednesday is an “unfolding genocide,” warning that “Gazans now make up 80% of all people facing famine or catastrophic hunger worldwide.”
This death and destruction inflicted on Gaza by Israel since Oct. 7 is precisely what South Africa has asked the ICJ to stop, putting in a special emergency request for provisional measures to halt the deadly Israeli campaign.
When the hearing concluded on Jan. 12, the ICJ put out a statement saying that its judges will now begin deliberations and their decision will be delivered at “a public sitting, the date of which will be announced in due course.”
Speaking to Anadolu, Tiersisto Mariniello, an Italian lawyer who was at The Hague for the hearing, said the decision on South Africa’s request for provisional measures “will come early because this is what the procedure requires.”
“We are talking about an urgent procedure. Provisional measure means priority over all the other cases the ICJ is dealing with,” said Mariniello, who is also part of the legal team representing Gaza victims at the International Criminal Court (ICC).
“We have had cases at the ICJ related to provisional measures in which the court has decided in eight days. So, I think that the decision could be expected in February, if not before.”
Another factor, according to Mariniello, is that “some of the judges are going to be replaced in February because of the natural end of their mandate.”
There are currently 15 judges on the case – from Australia, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Jamaica, Japan, Lebanon, Morocco, Russia, Slovakia, Somalia, Uganda, and the US – along with one ad hoc judge each from South Africa and Israel.
The judges from Jamaica, Morocco, Russia and the US are leaving next month, and will be replaced by others judges from Mexico, Romania, South Africa and the US.
“I personally, without speculating too much, believe that the decision will be issued before the replacement of the judges,” said Mariniello.
Then there is the potential intervention in the case “by third-state parties … as announced by Germany, for instance,” he continued.
“In this regard, the question is what is the court going to do? Are they going to accept submissions from them, inviting them to present their hearings? We will see,” he said.
“This is up to the judges now to decide in this relation.”
Assessing the arguments
The charges South Africa laid out against Israel at the ICJ focused on five main “genocidal acts” – the mass killing of Palestinians, infliction of serious mental and bodily harm, forced displacement and blockade on essential supplies, complete destruction of Gaza’s healthcare system, and preventing births in Gaza by blocking life-saving medical treatment and aid.
Israel’s response was centered on its right to self-defense against Hamas, denying that it has “genocidal intent,” asserting it has been trying to “minimize” civilian harm, and questioning the ICJ’s jurisdiction to handle the case.
“The South African submission and arguments are very, very compelling and persuasive,” said Mariniello.
“The application is solid and provides quite strong evidence in relation to all the elements of genocide.”
One particularly important point was how the South African showed the statements given by Israeli political and military leaders, all of which have been “typical genocidal statements,” he said.
“The Israeli defense tried to underestimate the statements … while the South Africans showed clearly how these statements received a concrete and effective implementation in Gaza,” he explained.
Double standards
Mariniello, who is involved in cases on behalf of Gaza victims at the ICC, was highly critical of the ICC’s lack of commitment when it comes to Palestine.
“I don’t think anyone can deny what we can call the double standards when it comes to the way in which Palestine and Palestinian victims have been treated by the international community, compared to other situations,” he said, citing as an example the urgency shown by the ICC on the Ukraine war.
“There have never been any statements, nor had any (ICC) investigator ever visited Israel or Palestine before December 2023. The Palestine investigation was receiving the smallest budget among all the active investigations before the ICC; one-fourth of the Ukraine budget, which gives you an idea of which is a priority for the court.”
While the ICC seems to have changed its approach a bit during the current conflict, with the current prosecutor, Karim Khan, visiting Rafah and “showing an interest in this investigation,” there are still many clear problems in its attitude, said Mariniello.
Even when Khan has spoken about the issue, “he never mentioned the context in which the Gaza war is taking place” and failed to link settler violence to “any state policy,” he said.
“So, the concern is that these double standards are going to continue to characterize future investigations as well,” he added. - AA, 18/1/2024
Indonesia Akan Mengajukan Kasus Baru Melawan Israel Ke Tingkat ICJ, Menekankan Pada Pendudukan Ilegal yang Telah Berlangsung Lebih dari 70 Tahun
WANODIA – Menteri Luar Negeri Indonesia mengumumkan bahwa Indonesia akan membawa kasus baru yang menyeret Israel kembali ke International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Retno Marsudi, selaku Menteri Luar Negeri Indonesia memaparkan, “International Law must be upheld. The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination must be respected. Israel’s occupation of Palestine, which has lasted for more than 70 years, will not erase the right of the Palestinian people to independence.”
(“Hukum Internasional harus ditegakkan. Hak warga Palestina untuk menentukan nasib bangsanya sendiri harus dihormati. Pendudukan Israel, yang telah berlangsung lebih dari 70 tahun, tidak akan menghapus hak Palestina untuk meraih kemerdekaan.”)
Ahli hukum Indonesia pun menambahkan bahwa pengajuan kasus baru ini akan menghadapi permasalahan yang berbeda dengan tuntutan yang diajukan oleh tim pengacara Afrika Selatan pada 11 Januari 2024 lalu.
Pengajuan kasus yang diangkat oleh pihak Indonesia akan menekankan pada tindakan ilegal Israel yang telah menduduki Palestina selama lebih dari 70 tahun, sementara Afrika Selatan menuntut tindakan Israel sebagai genosida.
Melalui akun twitternya, Retno Marsudi (@Menlu_RI) menjelaskan peran Indonesia yang akan menyajikan advisory opinion atau penyampaian pendapat dari para pakar hukum dengan memberikan 2 pernyataan.
Yang pertama, pernyataan tertulis telah disampaikan kepada pihak ICJ pada Juli 2023 serta pernyataan lisan akan dilaksanakan pada 19 Februari 2024 mendatang.
Pihak Indonesia berharap bahwa penyampaian pendapat ini akan dapat membantu pihak ICJ untuk mempertimbangkan keputusan terbaik yang akan mempengaruhi tindakan Majelis Umum PBB ke depannya.
Sikap
Indonesia yang tegas mengangkat isu pendudukan ilegal Israel di tanah
Palestina juga diharapkan dapat memberikan tekanan yang lebih besar
kepada Israel dan pihak barat yang terus mendukung penjajahan di wilayah
Gaza.*** - Wanodia, 19/1/2024
Indonesia to show Israel’s ‘blatant’ violations of international law at World Court
- ICJ to hear views on legal consequences of Israeli occupation of Palestine on Feb. 19
- Jakarta also supports South Africa’s genocide case against Israel, FM Retno Marsudi says
JAKARTA: Indonesia is preparing legal arguments for an International Court of Justice hearing to challenge Israel’s occupation of Palestine, Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi said on Tuesday.
The ICJ, which is also known as the World Court, will hold public hearings on Feb. 19 at The Hague, where parties are scheduled to give their views on the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.
The ICJ will eventually issue a non-binding advisory opinion for the UN General Assembly, which adopted a resolution for the request in December 2022, before the latest Israeli escalation that has killed over 24,000 Palestinians and displaced about 1.9 million.
“Indonesia supports the General Assembly’s effort in requesting an advisory opinion from the ICJ, because international law must be upheld,” Marsudi said ahead of a discussion with international law experts in Jakarta.
She said it was necessary to build a comprehensive legal opinion “to show the world Israel’s blatant violation of international law against Palestine.” She described as illegal Tel Aviv’s annexation of Palestinian territories, its settlements in the West Bank and decision to change the status of Jerusalem.
“Our deliberations today will not only support Indonesia’s diplomacy, but to support the enforcement of world order according to international law and to support our Palestinian brothers and sisters to achieve their independence.”
Indonesia is a staunch supporter of Palestine, with its people and government seeing Palestinian statehood as mandated by the nation’s constitution, which calls for the abolition of colonialism.
The February hearing at the ICJ is separate from the case South Africa launched late last year, which accuses Israel of engaging in “genocidal acts” in Gaza.
Jakarta has not joined the recent case at The Hague as Indonesia is not party to the Genocide Convention.
“Even though we are not party to the Genocide Convention, Indonesia has expressed its support for South Africa to report Israel’s violations of the Genocide Convention to the ICJ,” Marsudi said.
“The main point of all Indonesia’s efforts is to look for all possible ways to continue supporting the Palestinian struggle.” - Arab News, 16/1/2024
![A person waves a Palestinian flag outside the U.S. Embassy in support of Palestinians in Jakarta, Indonesia on January 15, 2024. [Garry Andrew Lotulung - Anadolu Agency]](https://i0.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/AA-20240115-33439200-33439197-THOUSANDS_OF_SHOES_LEFT_OUTSIDE_THE_US_EMBASSY_TO_SHOW_SOLIDARITY_WITH_PALESTINIANS_IN_JAKARTA.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1)
No comments:
Post a Comment