Anger at Israeli brutality grows

[Shusha]

Who are you, to point your hypocrite fingers at the Republic of South-Africa or the Federal Republic of Germany??

Hey. I didn't bring them up.

 

[Shusha]

The Apartheid Republiek van Suid-Afrika, ceased to exist in April 1994 ...

This, and the rest of your post, factually incorrect. A change in government, or a new Constitution, does not dissolve a State. Nor does a change in name (though the Republic of South Africa did not change its name).

 

[Shusha]

Israel needs to be occupied via a UN mandate - it's parties dismantled and a Nuremberg trial needs to be held in Tel Aviv.

That's not how international law works.

 

[Kruska]

This, and the rest of your post, factually incorrect. A change in government, or a new Constitution, does not dissolve a State. Nor does a change in name (though the Republic of South Africa did not change its name).

Churchill stated:
People question the value of some system existing all the time, aparthed South Africa no longer exists, antisemtic Nazi Germany no longer exists. Why is the suggestion that a reprehensible political state should not exist a concern?

Then see your evading reaction:

So nothing incorrect - what's incorrect is your bullshit about a country that is being reset, by changing its name, its regime and as such its CONSTITUTION and ridding itself of war-criminals and pro-genocidal politicians and it's likewise parties, not being a different country altogether.

You know exactly what this about - and that's why you internationally try to divert the subject. Your well known Zionist playbook.

Do you support bringing Bibi, his hangman and party to justice?

YES? or NO?

 

[Kruska]

That's not how international law works.

That's exactly as to what international law was made for.
Any country is legible to call for such a Mandate - and the UNSC decides upon it, and if necessary ENFORCES it.

So YES? or NO?

 

[Shusha]

Nothing incorrect - what's incorrect is your bullshit about a country that is being reset, by changing its name, its regime and as such its CONSTITUTION and ridding itself of war-criminals and pro-genocidal politicians and it's likewise parties, not being a different country altogether.

Sigh. No. I am being extremely specific with my terminology. I understand your "a different country altogether" in layman's terms. But legally, technically, the State of the Republic of South Africa did not cease to exist. It would be entirely correct to call me pedantic, though.

Do you support bringing Bibi, his hangman and party to justice?

YES? or NO?

"To justice" suggests conviction prior to trial. I oppose pre-determined outcomes for legal matters. I fully support investigation, discovery, disclosure, and then further legal proceedings if warranted. As is being called for by the Israeli public and is necessary for a democratic State like Israel. Surprised?

 

[Shusha]

That's exactly as to what international law was made for.
Any country is legible eligible (?) to call for such a Mandate - and the UNSC decides upon it, and if necessary ENFORCES it.

So YES? or NO?

What international law suggests the the UN (or a single other State!) can unilaterally dismantle a State or the government of a State by force? Link?

Edited to add: that would be an extremely unwise and dangerous precedent - to permit states to just go around dismantling the governments of other states.

 

[Kruska]

Sigh. No. I am being extremely specific with my terminology. I understand your "a different country altogether" in layman's terms. But legally, technically, the State of the Republic of South Africa did not cease to exist. It would be entirely correct to call me pedantic, though.

"To justice" suggests conviction prior to trial. I oppose pre-determined outcomes for legal matters. I fully support investigation, discovery, disclosure, and then further legal proceedings if warranted. As is being called for by the Israeli public and is necessary for a democratic State like Israel. Surprised?

YES? or NO?

No answer and it is obvious to everyone that you simply are a full supporter of Israels suppressive and genocidal actions and ambitions.
No need to waste my time or others further watching a Jewish radical Zionist winding around a question like a worm whilst trying to open another hole.

 

[Shusha]

YES? or NO?

I answered your question. The answer was clear and unambiguous.

 

[Kruska]

I answered your question. The answer was clear and unambiguous.

Sigh. No. I am being extremely specific.........

So that No is the NO to my question?

I wasn't asking for your winding evasion via trying to open a new hole with your "assumptions" about "bringing to justice".

And:
Yes, a country can initiate a process within the United Nations (UN) against another country for human rights breaches and war crimes, though the binding nature and speed of the action depend on which UN body addresses the situation

• Action: A member state can bring a situation to the Security Council, which can determine a "threat to peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" under Chapter VII.
• Consequences: The council can order sanctions, embargoes, or authorize military action to maintain peace.

So last time:

YES or NO?