By: Prof. Dr. Walid ‘Abd al-Hay.[1]
(Exclusively for al-Zaytouna Centre).
Introduction
Voting in the UN serves as a key indicator of a state’s overarching foreign policy orientations. This process is shaped by a multitude of variables, the relative weight of which varies according to the specific context of the issue at hand. These variables can be systematically categorized using the framework proposed by Émile Durkheim in his study of societal solidarity. He distinguished between mechanical solidarity, such as language, religion, ethnicity and skin color, and organic solidarity, including trade networks, technological interconnections, joint ventures, alliances, and the establishment of intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. Durkheim posited that the expansion of organic solidarity tends to attenuate mechanical ones. A salient illustration of this dynamic can be observed in the evolution of Europe’s inter-state relations, which progressed from the pure nation-state model of Westphalia to the European Common Market, and ultimately to the contemporary European Union (EU), characterized by a single currency and a shared parliamentary system… This institutional evolution provides a compelling explanation for the absence of armed conflict among EU member states since World War II. Indeed, intra-European trade in 2024 accounts for approximately 61.65% of the EU’s total trade with the rest of the world.[2]
| Click here to download: >> Academic Paper: The Correlation Between “Organic and Mechanical Solidarity” and UN Voting on the Two-State Solution … Prof. Dr. Walid ‘Abd al-Hay  (16 pages, 1.3 MB) |
In this study, drawing on Durkheim’s theoretical framework, we specifically aim to examine a particular hypothesis: namely, to measure the association between states’ voting patterns in the UN General Assembly on the Palestine issue and two key variables, using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. The first variable, religion and religious denomination, serves as an indicator of mechanical solidarity, while the second, the volume of trade relations, serves as a proxy for organic solidarity. Consequently, we analyzed a sample of states to assess the influence of these variables on voting behavior. For the focus of this study, we selected the vote on the UN General Assembly resolution in September 2025, which called for the implementation of the “two-state solution” as a means to resolve the conflict in the Middle East.[3]
Our analysis of the vote on the “two-state solution” in the UN General Assembly on 12/9/2025 does not rely on any normative evaluation.[4] Rather, it constitutes an attempt to understand the policies of member states by establishing a set of indicators and measuring the role of these indicators in shaping a state’s voting behavior. Specifically, we ask whether religion or religious denomination, or the volume of trade relations with Arab states, plays a role in determining votes. In this study, we aim to statistically interpret and assess voting behavior,[5] relying on two indicators that have not been sufficiently examined in previous studies related to the Arab–Israel conflict. The first indicator is religion/ denomination (with a focus on states with a Christian majority), and the second is the volume of trade relations. The purpose is to measure the degree of alignment between voting patterns and mechanical as well as organic solidarity, in accordance with Durkheim’s theoretical framework referenced above.
Statistically, it is well established that intermediate variables (other factors) or emergent circumstances, so-called “black swans,” may account for fluctuations in the correlations between variables, whether positive or negative. Nevertheless, this does not diminish the broader significance of the relationships among the variables under study, particularly when attention is directed toward the overarching Mega-trend rather than being narrowly focused on a specific event or subsidiary trend.
Measurement and Analysis of Voting Behavior on the Two-State Solution:
First: General Global Trends in Voting Behavior
At the outset, it is essential to distinguish between states’ positions on two issues that are interrelated but not identical. The first concerns the recognition of Palestine as a state and its right to full membership in the UN. The second concerns acceptance of the two-state solution (Palestine and Israel), which explains the divergence in the number of votes on each issue. This divergence arises because the two-state solution entails legal recognition of Israel, which some states refuse to grant. Accordingly, our analysis focuses exclusively on voting regarding the two-state solution. The vote on 12/9/2025[6] thus provides the baseline for analyzing and measuring the correlation coefficients between the variables under consideration: religion, sect and trade.
A review of the distribution of states across voting patterns reveals the following:[7]
Table 1: Voting Behavior in the General Assembly on the Two-State Solution, September 2025
| Against (10) |
Abstained (12) | Absent (29) | In Favor (142) |
| United States | Albania | Afghanistan | Rest of the World |
| Israel | Cameroon | Antigua | |
| Argentina | Czechia | Benin | |
| Hungary | Dem Rep of the Congo | Bhutan | |
| Micronesia | Ecuador | Bolivia | |
| Nauru | Ethiopia | Central African Republic | |
| Palau | Fiji | Dominica | |
| Papua New Guinea | Guatemala | Equatorial Guinea | |
| Paraguay | North Macedonia | Eritrea | |
| Tonga | Moldova | Eswatini (Swaziland) | |
| Samoa | Grenada | ||
| South Sudan | Georgia | ||
| Guinea-Bissau | |||
| Haiti | |||
| Honduras | |||
| Iran | |||
| Iraq | |||
| Kiribati | |||
| Liberia | |||
| Madagascar | |||
| São Tomé and Príncipe | |||
| Panama | |||
| Monaco | |||
| Malawi | |||
| Zambia | |||
| Venezuela | |||
| Vanuatu | |||
| Tuvalu | |||
| Tunisia |
Table 1 presents the voting results, whose principal implications may be summarized as follows:
• The global approval rate for the two-state solution stands at 73.58%.
• The proportion of states opposing the proposal is 5.2%.
• The proportion abstaining from the vote is 6.2%.
• The proportion absent from the vote is 15%.
When states are classified according to the dominant religion of their populations, several notable observations emerge:
• None of the member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which comprises 57 members, voted against the resolution.
• Only one Muslim-majority country, Albania, an OIC member, abstained from voting.
• Four Muslim-majority countries, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Tunisia, were absent from the vote.
It is also important to note that certain states abstained from voting or were absent owing to specific political considerations. Countries such as Iran, Iraq, Tunisia, and Venezuela, among others, chose to abstain or not attend because they regarded the resolution as falling short of addressing the full range of Palestinian demands, particularly the right to self-determination and the end of the Israeli occupation. Furthermore, endorsing the two-state solution entails implicit recognition of Israel, a position inconsistent with these states’ policies.[8] Meanwhile, several Muslim-majority states, including Afghanistan, were unable to exercise their voting rights owing to the application of Article 19 of the UN Charter, which suspends the voting rights of any member state that has been in arrears for two or more years in its financial contributions to the UN, a provision that was, in fact, applied to Afghanistan.[9]
Based on the foregoing data, five Muslim-majority countries did not vote in favor of the resolution, accounting for 8.8% of the OIC member states. In other words, 91.2% of Muslim countries supported it.
Given that there are 57 Muslim countries, 9 countries adhering to Asian religions (2 Hindu and 7 Buddhist), one Jewish state, and 10 countries that are secular, atheist or lack a dominant religion, the total amounts to 77. This, in turn, indicates that there are 116 Christian-majority countries, 98 of which voted in favor of the resolution, equivalent to 84.5% support among Christian-majority states.
The preceding quantitative indicators do not suggest a clear correlation between religious majority and voting patterns. For instance, a large proportion of states with Asian religions voted in favor of the resolution. The same applies to countries described as having no dominant religion, such as China, Sweden, Vietnam, Norway, Denmark and Japan.[10]
To further validate the preceding results, we selected a sample of the 20 most populous Christian-majority countries. Table 2 presents the positions of each country within this sample:
Table 2: Voting of a Random Sample from All Continents: The Twenty Most Populous Christian-Majority Countries
| Christian-Majority Countries by Population [11] | Vote on the Two-State Solution |
| US | Against |
| Brazil | In Favor |
| Russia | In Favor |
| Mexico | In Favor |
| Nigeria | In Favor |
| Philippines | In Favor |
| Dem Rep of the Congo | Abstention |
| Italy | In Favor |
| Ethiopia | Abstention |
| Germany | In Favor |
| Colombia | In Favor |
| Ukraine | In Favor |
| South Africa | In Favor |
| France | In Favor |
| Spain | In Favor |
| Poland | In Favor |
| Kenya | In Favor |
| Argentina | Against |
| United Kingdom | In Favor |
| Uganda | In Favor |
| Total | In Favor: 16 Against: 2 Abstain: 2 |
Examining the results of the previous table, which includes Christian-majority countries with populations exceeding fifty million in each of the twenty states, it is evident that 80% voted in favor of the two-state solution, 10% opposed it, and 10% abstained. This indicates that religious orientation in these countries did not produce significant divergence in overall voting trends, as their voting patterns are largely comparable to those of the Muslim countries that are members of the OIC.
Second: Voting Behavior According to Denominational Affiliation in Christian Countries
Christianity, in its broad framework, is generally divided into three main denominations: Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism. I drew on demographic studies focused on subcultures, emphasizing denominational affiliation.[12] Based on these data, we tracked voting on the two-state solution among countries with a majority of each of the three Christian denominations (covering 111 countries). Countries were classified according to the dominant denomination, and voting behavior was categorized into three patterns: in favor, against and abstain. The results are presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Voting Patterns According to Christian Denomination
| Denomination | In Favor | Against | Abstain | Total | Support (%) |
| Catholics | 46 | 0 | 1 | 47 | 97.87 |
| Protestants | 38 | 4 | 7 | 49 | 77.55 |
| Orthodox | 14 | 0 | 1 | 15 | 93.33 |
| Total | 98 | 4 | 9 | 111 | – |
The results in Table 3 indicate that the highest support among Christian-majority countries is observed in Catholic countries, followed by Orthodox countries. By contrast, the support in Protestant countries is approximately 20% lower than in Catholic countries and 16% lower than in Orthodox countries. To examine statistical correlations, the Fisher Exact Test was employed, with the results summarized in Table 4:[13]
Table 4: Correlation Between Voting Behavior and Denominational Affiliation in Christian-Majority Countries
| Comparison | Odds Ratio | p-value | Interpretation |
| Protestants vs. Catholics | 1.29 | 1.000 | Not statistically significant |
| Protestants vs. Orthodox | 0.43 | 0.607 | Not statistically significant |
| Catholics vs. Orthodox | 0.33 | 0.344 | Not statistically significant |
The table above indicates that there are no statistically significant differences among the three denominations at the 0.05 significance level. However, the odds ratios suggest the following patterns:
• Protestants versus Catholics: weak association (1.29).
• Protestants versus Orthodox: inverse, non-significant association (0.43)
• Catholics versus Orthodox: weak inverse association (0.33).
To further validate the accuracy of the correlation between voting behavior and denominational affiliation in Christian-majority countries (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox), we selected a sample of 28 Christian-majority countries and categorized them according to their predominant denomination.[14]
Table 5: Sample of Countries with Diverse Denominations and Their Voting Behavior on the Two-State Solution
| Protestant | Catholic | Orthodox |
| Against | Against | Against |
| United States | Argentina | — |
| Micronesia | Hungary | — |
| Papua New Guinea | Palau | — |
| Tonga | Paraguay | — |
| Nauru | — | — |
| Abstain | Abstain | Abstain |
| Cameroon | Congo | Ethiopia |
| Samoa | Guatemala | North Macedonia |
| South Sudan | Ecuador | Moldova |
| In Favor | In Favor | In Favor |
| United Kingdom | Italy | Romania |
| Germany | France | Greece |
| — | Brazil | Russia |
| — | Spain | — |
| — | Philippines | — |
By calculating the correlation coefficient for the 28 countries, a value of 0.081 was obtained, indicating a very small magnitude. This suggests that although the relationship between denomination and voting behavior is positive, it remains weak.[15] However, the results reveal differences that warrant closer examination. The correlation coefficient measuring the pattern of voting behavior by denomination shows relative variations among the groups, as follows:
• Correlation among Catholic countries: 0.0735
• Correlation among Protestant countries: 0.0697
• Correlation among Orthodox countries: 0.0355
From the foregoing, it can be concluded that, at a significance level of p > 0.05, there are no statistically significant differences. In other words, the relationship between voting behavior and denominational affiliation is weak. Nonetheless, two observations merit attention:
• Orthodox countries appear more inclined either to support or to abstain from voting on the two-state solution.
• Protestant countries are more likely to vote against the solution.
Third: Voting Behavior and the Volume of Trade Relations with the Arab World
Trade relations among countries constitute a central indicator of organic solidarity. As noted, the experience of the EU illustrates that increased intra-European trade has been associated with a decline in inter-state conflicts, which historically represented a prominent feature of both early modern and contemporary European history.
To assess the influence of trade on voting patterns, we selected 28 countries with the highest trade volumes with Arab countries. We then examined the trade volume between these countries and the Arab world in relation to their voting behavior on the two-state solution. Subsequently, we identified the countries that voted against the resolution and measured their trade volume with Arab countries. The analysis reveals a clear relationship between trade and voting behavior, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Trade Volume with the Arab World Among the 28 Highest-Trading Countries and Their Voting Behavior on the Two-State Solution [16]
| Country | Rank by Average Trade Volume with Arab Countries (2022–Early 2025) |
Voting Pattern |
| China | 1 | In Favor |
| United States | 2 | Against |
| India | 3 | In Favor |
| Germany | 4 | In Favor |
| South Korea | 5 | In Favor |
| Japan | 6 | In Favor |
| Italy | 7 | In Favor |
| Türkiye | 8 | In Favor |
| France | 9 | In Favor |
| Spain | 10 | In Favor |
| Netherlands | 11 | In Favor |
| United Kingdom | 12 | In Favor |
| Singapore | 13 | In Favor |
| Russia | 14 | In Favor |
| Belgium | 15 | In Favor |
| Switzerland | 16 | In Favor |
| Malaysia | 17 | In Favor |
| Indonesia | 18 | In Favor |
| Poland | 19 | In Favor |
| Thailand | 20 | In Favor |
| Austria | 21 | In Favor |
| Brazil | 22 | In Favor |
| Czech Republic | 23 | Abstain |
| Sweden | 24 | In Favor |
| Mexico | 25 | In Favor |
| Vietnam | 26 | In Favor |
| Ukraine | 27 | In Favor |
| Greece | 28 | In Favor |
The table shows that only one country, the United States, which ranks second in terms of trade volume with Arab states, voted against the two-state solution, representing 3.57%. Similarly, one country, the Czech Republic, abstained from voting, accounting for the same percentage. This indicates that 92.86% of the countries with the highest trade volumes with the Arab world voted in favor of the resolution.
When examining the countries that opposed the resolution, ten in total, it becomes clear that, excluding the US and Israel, the remaining eight countries maintain very modest trade relations with the Arab world. Indeed, their combined trade volume, including that of Paraguay, Hungary and Argentina, did not exceed half a billion dollars. As for the other five countries, they are relatively small economies whose trade is almost entirely limited to the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia, amounting collectively to only a few tens of millions of dollars.[17] This suggests that their limited trade ties do not place them under the influence of this variable when casting their votes in favor of the two-state solution, particularly since most of them align their foreign policy orientations with the influence of other powers. This finding reinforces the conclusion that the magnitude of trade relations exerts a tangible impact on voting behavior, a correlation demonstrated earlier through the sample of countries with the highest trade volumes with the Arab world. The same dynamic was evident in Brazil’s stance during the presidency of Jair Bolsonaro, when he initially sought to move the Brazilian embassy to Jerusalem but later reversed the decision under pressure from domestic commercial institutions.[18]
It is important to note that countries with the highest trade volumes with the Arab world take into account the impact of ongoing conflict on oil prices, the disruption of trade routes, the rising costs of cargo insurance, and the resulting effects on supply chains, in addition to migration from conflict zones to some of these countries (particularly in Europe). These considerations reinforce their inclination to support conflict-resolution initiatives, including the two-state solution, in order to mitigate all of these adverse effects. It is sufficient to note that maritime traffic through the Suez Canal, which accounts for 12% of world trade and 30% of container traffic, declined by more than 50% in late 2024[RS1] .[19]
Results
Statistical analysis of voting on the two-state solution, based on religion, denominational affiliation, and trade relations, indicates the following:
• There are no statistically significant differences in the correlation between religion and voting behavior.
• No clear correlation was found between denominational affiliation in Christian-majority countries and voting patterns.
• Catholics and Orthodox countries exhibited high levels of support (97.9% and 93.3%, respectively), whereas Protestant countries were more divided: 77.6% in favor, 8.2% against, and 14.3% abstaining. This reinforces the conclusion that Protestant affiliation is more closely associated with opposition or abstention compared to the other two denominations, despite the weak statistical significance of denomination in determining voting behavior.
• It is evident that trade relations appear to be the most strongly correlated factor in voting behavior. This suggests that leveraging trade ties with the Arab world constitutes an effective means of influencing voting patterns.
[1] An expert in futures studies, a former professor in the Department of Political Science at Yarmouk University in Jordan and a holder of Ph.D. in Political Science from Cairo University. He is also a former member of the Board of Trustees of Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan, Irbid National University, the National Center for Human Rights, the Board of Grievances and the Supreme Council of Media. He has authored 37 books, most of which are focused on future studies in both theoretical and practical terms, and published 120 research papers in peer-reviewed academic journals.
[2] Annual share of goods imports from the European Union coming from intra-EU and extra-EU trade partners from 2002 to 2024, site of Statista, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1384794/eu-international-trade-share-imports-intra-extra-goods/
[3] It should be noted, however, that an intervening variable may not be apparent when examining the relationship between the mechanical or organic solidarity and voting behavior. This issue will be addressed in a subsequent study.
[4] In other words, we neither endorse nor reject this solution; rather, we approach it as a political phenomenon, and the findings of this study may inform multiple avenues of analysis and interpretation.
[5] We relied on this source, namely the UN General Assembly voting screen, and linked the indicators to states’ voting behavior as displayed on the screen, in UN News (@UN_News_Centre), site of X, 12/9/2025, 17:44, https://x.com/UN_News_Centre/status/1966513311547032059
[6] If the Holy See, the governing body of the Catholic Church and Vatican City, is excluded (as a non-member state of the UN), the number of states that have recognized Palestine amounts to 157, representing approximately 81% of UN member states. It is important here to distinguish between recognition of Palestine and acceptance of the two-state solution. For example, Iran, Tunisia, and Iraq have recognized Palestine, with Iran supporting its full UN membership since 1988, yet all three abstained from voting in favor of the two-state solution. For details, see Marium Ali, Which are the 150+ countries that have recognised Palestine as of 2025?, site of Al Jazeera, 23/9/2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/23/which-are-the-150-countries-that-have-recognised-palestine-as-of-2025
[7] I relied on multiple sources to determine the religious majority. There is variation in the figures, even for a single year, so I used numbers consistent across sources and disregarded outliers reported by only one or few sources. See Population by religion, sex and urban/rural residence, site of UN Data, https://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=POP&f=tableCode%3A28; Conrad Hackett et al., “3. Muslim population change,” in How the Global Religious Landscape Changed From 2010 to 2020, site of Pew Research Center, 9/6/2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/06/09/muslim-population-change/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=22378837192&gbraid=0AAAAA-ddO9GrOshn7sRNGaTwCwdQjS59m&gclid=CjwKCAjwuePGBhBZEiwAIGCVS5PfH_6gIzsGn_yqFtE2JmP3GncojSUzkgnXWE_7QvpH69rplKt9YBoCKQcQAvD_BwE; Muslim Population by Country 2025, site of World Population Review, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/muslim-population-by-country; Most Christian Countries 2025, World Population Review, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-christian-countries; and Conrad Hackett et al., “4. Religiously unaffiliated population change,” in How the Global Religious Landscape Changed From 2010 to 2020, Pew Research Center, 9/6/2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/06/09/religiously-unaffiliated-population-change/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=22208515841&gbraid=0AAAAA-ddO9FxUtqRUvpvOu9X0v2i1khaJ&gclid=CjwKCAjwuePGBhBZEiwAIGCVS2UsJDmiOi69BscbWwv1wl-lbR0H1Zdz0WxwBKnqep5PMOzb5tHCrhoCokcQAvD_BwE
[8] Explanation by Iran’s Mission Regarding the UN Resolution on the Question of Palestine, site of West Asia News Agency (WANA), 13/9/2025, https://wanaen.com/explanation-by-irans-mission-regarding-the-un-resolution-on-the-question-of-palestine/; and Why Did Iran Abstain from the UN Vote on Palestinian Statehood?, WANA, 14/9/2025, https://wanaen.com/why-did-iran-abstain-from-the-un-vote-on-palestinian-statehood/
[9] Afghanistan Stripped of UN Voting Rights for Third Consecutive Year, site of TOLO news, 22/9/2025, https://tolonews.com/index.php/afghanistan-195874
[10] Conrad Hackett et al., “4. Religiously unaffiliated population change,” in How the Global Religious Landscape Changed From 2010 to 2020, Pew Research Center, 9/6/2025; “Graph: Whether or not you belong to a religion, do you believe or not believe in the following? -God,” in More Prone to Believe in God than Identify as Religious. More Likely to Believe in Heaven than in Hell, site of Gallup International, 12/4/2023, https://gallup-international.com/survey-results-and-news/survey-result/more-prone-to-believe-in-god-than-identify-as-religious-more-likely-to-believe-in-heaven-than-in-hell; and Michael Martin (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 56, https://archive.org/details/cambridgecompani0000unse_n0k5/page/56/mode/2up?q=page+56
[11] Most Christian Countries 2025, World Population Review, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-christian-countries
[12] Highest Catholic Population 2025, World Population Review, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/highest-catholic-population; Protestant Countries 2025, World Population Review, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/protestant-countries; and Eastern Orthodoxy by Country 2025, World Population Review, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/eastern-orthodoxy-by-country
[13] The analysis was conducted in three steps:
a. Comparing Catholics and Orthodox combined versus Protestants..
b. Conducting a three-way comparison, evaluating each denomination against the other two.
c. Comparing Protestants against the combination of the other two denominations.
For an in-depth overview of the Fisher Exact Test for assessing correlations, see Jim Frost, Fisher’s Exact Test: Using & Interpreting, site of Statistics By Jim, https://statisticsbyjim.com/hypothesis-testing/fishers-exact-test/
[14] “Religious Composition by Country, 2010-2020,” Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/feature/religious-composition-by-country-2010-2020/
[15] These results were obtained by applying Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The denominations were coded as follows: Catholic = 1, Protestant = 2, and Orthodox = 3. Likewise, voting behavior was assigned numerical values: Against = 1, Abstain = 2, and In Favor = 3. The statistical significance of the correlation was then tested using a t-test at a significance level of p = 0.05.
[16] Free access to detailed global trade data, site of UN COMTRADE Database, https://comtradeplus.un.org/; and Top Trade Partners of Middle East and North African (MENA) Countries, site of Voronoi, 23/1/2024, https://www.voronoiapp.com/trade/Top-Trade-Partners-of-Middle-East-and-North-African-MENA-Countries-547
[17] See details in: Tonga, site of Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC), 2023, https://oec.world/en/profile/country/ton; United Arab Emirates/ Argentina, OEC, 2023, https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-country/are/partner/arg; and Hungary – GCC Relations, site of Gulf Research Center, 12/8/2025,https://www.grc.net/documents/689b3b6c79658HungarygccCountryProfileMay252.pdf
[18] Ana Mano and Jake Spring, Brazil risks Middle East trade with Israel embassy move, Reuters News Agency, 8/11/2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-israel-trade-analysis/brazil-risks-middle-east-trade-with-israel-embassy-move-idUSKCN1ND33T
[19] Political & Social Risk: what you need to watch out for in 2025, site of Coface, 7/4/2025, https://www.coface.com/news-economy-and-insights/political-social-risk-what-you-need-to-watch-out-for-in-2025; and Middle East Conflict: What it means for macro and markets, site of International Netherlands Group (ING) Economics, 13/6/2025, https://think.ing.com/articles/middle-east-conflict-what-it-means-for-macro-and-markets/
[RS1]maritime traffic through this canal fell by more than 50% in the last quarter of 2024 compared to the same period the previous year,
| Click here to download: >> Academic Paper: The Correlation Between “Organic and Mechanical Solidarity” and UN Voting on the Two-State Solution … Prof. Dr. Walid ‘Abd al-Hay (16 pages, 1.3 MB) |
Leave A Comment