Israel and Palestine on trial for war crimes

[WhiteHaven]

Sure, once you try negotiating with Al-Qaeda. Oh, wait, you rejected the very notion.

This is hillarious.

"Hey, another nation is doing something. Look, they were attacked by terrorists and now they are waging war on terror, especially in Afghanistan. Hell yeah, let's do the same. Bomb some terrorists and kill a lot of civilans on the way. That is going to stop terror. It works well in Afghanistan, doesn't it?"

And yes, that was irony. The USA wanted to bring peace with bombs, we can see how that worked out. Every month more and more soldiers are dying. THAT is what I call victory.

You sure that this is what you want? Eternal war? Hell, then do what you are doing right now. Bomb, bomb, bomb. You are going to win :rolleyes:

[Jon AS]

I'm doing my best to look at it from an outsider's perspective, and the idea that our media - and our people - hold Israel to a far higher standard than they hold our own government in Afghanistan is difficult to get away from.

I don't know about the UK, but in the German media Afghanistan is criminally neglected. The Israel-Palestine conflict has a much higher profile and it's much easier to get upset about something you know about then something the media thought too boring to bring to your attention. The simple fact is that not everyone scours every available news source for every ounce of information to be found on every subject.

[ljkeane]

I know two things:

1: Neither you nor I know the investigative parameters set by the UNHRC for the commision.

What? The parameters of the investigation were set out in the first paragraph of the report.

Thus, from an international perspective, agreeing with an ICC investigation, not only errodes the power of the Israeli high court, but allso (regardless of the verdict), tarnishes Israel's name far more than any other investigative option. Thus, in my opinion, the solution would be a neutral country or a trusted country, by both sides (and in both sides I mean the PLO and Israel).

The report clearly recommends that Israel should implement an independent investigation into the issues raised, that seems like a perfectly reasonable suggestion to me.

To be honest the impression I get is not that Israel objects to just this investigation but that it objects to any independent investigation of the issue. If Israel had requested that instead of this investigation there was one overseen by the EU or some other neautal party I don't think most people would object but it didn't and it is still preventing human rights NGO's from investigating the issue.

[Yoadm]

This is hillarious.

"Hey, another nation is doing something. Look, they were attacked by terrorists and now they are waging war on terror, especially in Afghanistan. Hell yeah, let's do the same. Bomb some terrorists and kill a lot of civilans on the way. That is going to stop terror. It works well in Afghanistan, doesn't it?"

And yes, that was irony. The USA wanted to bring peace with bombs, we can see how that worked out. Every month more and more soldiers are dying. THAT is what I call victory.

You sure that this is what you want? Eternal war? Hell, then do what you are doing right now. Bomb, bomb, bomb. You are going to win :rolleyes:

When your enemy is opposed to any meaningfull negotiation, and is sworn to your destruction, then you have no choice but to combat it, while doing whatever is possible to avoid civilian casualties. Unfortunately, many of the extremist liberals of today, if they lived in the 40's, would have advocated 'negotiating with hitler'.

What? The parameters of the investigation were set out in the first paragraph of the report.

No, not really. The mandate and limitations were not provided in the report.

The report clearly recommends that Israel should implement an independent investigation into the issues raised, that seems like a perfectly reasonable suggestion to me.

Ironically, Israel did. The Israeli High Court, one of the most respected judicial bodies in the world, actually judged the war in 'real time', while it was happening, something few if any western nations would dare do. It's conclusions were varied, but rich in detail, and the commision completely ignored the report. I would warmly reccomend you read it: It deals with all the major issues at hand:

Israeli High court on Gaza:

http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/09/01...9002010.n07.pdf

To be honest the impression I get is not that Israel objects to just this investigation but that it objects to any independent investigation of the issue. If Israel had requested that instead of this investigation there was one overseen by the EU or some other neautal party I don't think most people would object but it didn't and it is still preventing human rights NGO's from investigating the issue.

Israel has allready supported many neutral mediators or forces in the past, like the UN body in Lebanon which supervises both parties in the conflict. In addition, Israel allready investigated the war with a military inquiry and a high court inquiry, both, ignored by the UNHRC. Lastly, since we allready investigated the conduct of the war ourselves, there was no need, in our opinion, for an independent commision, especially not a biased one. Remember, practically all countries who have the abilities to investigate their own actions tend to abhor foreign intervention in this field. Even nato would be loath to allow an outside commision to supervise its actions since it would errode its mandate.

[shadowbinding shoe]

And the Egyptians are supposed to do what? Let the refugees cross the border with no control? No, no. Egypt has is own problems and let's be honest, Isreal is the nation which is, somehow, ruling Gaza and the West Bank. They close (and sometimes) open the borders as they like. The result is well known.

Err, no? Israel has partial control in the West Bank. It divides responsibilities between itself and the Palestinian authorities. There's a division of the Lands into three categories (conveniently called A B and C) one with Israel control one Palestinian and one common. In Gaza there is no Israeli control anywhere. There're Israeli soldiers on the Israeli lands around Gaza preventing Gazans from getting into Israel (just like South Koreans patrol their borders against North Korean incursions.)

As for the Egyptians, they could for example give supplies, commerce and so on. Perhaps supply them with things they demand from Israel like Electricity and water. Basically if the Egyptians didn't want the close borders to exist these borders wouldn't by closed any more. And most of the rest of world thinks the same way for that matter. Only a few human activists and a couple of anti Israeli nations like Iran have tried to stop it. The rest of the world seems to think the situation is tolerable.

Gaza is still an occupied territory it does not have control of its borders, territorial waters or airspace, the Gaza -Egyptian border after all is governed according to an agreement reached between Egypt and Israel not Egypt and the authorities in Gaza.

So you're saying Lybia was an Occupied Territory between 1992-2003 because of the embargo the USA and the rest of the world put it under?

[Padraig]

Ironically, Israel did. The Israeli High Court, one of the most respected judicial bodies in the world, actually judged the war in 'real time', while it was happening, something few if any western nations would dare do. It's conclusions were varied, but rich in detail, and the commision completely ignored the report. I would warmly reccomend you read it: It deals with all the major issues at hand:

Everything done by the military in Israel is open to judicial review by the independent Israeli judiciary. The Israeli government has refused to sanction a non-Israeli review pleading sovereignty. I'm surprised Yoadm has been suggesting otherwise. Although, the latter is now inching away from that position.

I don't see any benefit in comparing what is going on in Gaza with the situation in Afghanistan. Unless somebody thinks what is going on is Gaza is fine.

Edited for clarit

[ljkeane]

No, not really. The mandate and limitations were not provided in the report.

The first paragraph in the report says:

On 3 April 2009, the President of the Human Rights Council established the United Nations

Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict with the mandate “to investigate all violations of

international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been

committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza

during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or

after.â€

That seems pretty clear to me and on top of that the methodology used in their investigations is clearly set out in the report. I'm not sure how the mandate or the scope of their investigations could be more clear than that.

Ironically, Israel did. The Israeli High Court, one of the most respected judicial bodies in the world, actually judged the war in 'real time', while it was happening, something few if any western nations would dare do. It's conclusions were varied, but rich in detail, and the commision completely ignored the report. I would warmly reccomend you read it: It deals with all the major issues at hand:

The report rather extensively addresses the Israeli investigations into the conflict (admittadly that was impacted by the lack of Israeli cooperation). Whether this Israeli High Court report is referenced I can't remember (and I can't be arsed to read it again) but it's clear that the Israeli investigation into the issues isn't glossed over in the report.

Additionally while the conflict might have been reviewed in "real time" Israeli authorities also denied access to the conflict for neutral observers which hardly paints it in a good light.

A specific problem with the Israeli investigation I do remember from the report is the absence of 50% of the information from a Palestinian perspective, which is exactly what you are criticising the UNHRC investigation for.

[Padraig]

In Gaza there is no Israeli control anywhere.

You can tell me what has changed since this report.

[Usotsuki]

So you're saying Lybia was an Occupied Territory between 1992-2003 because of the embargo the USA and the rest of the world put it under?

A polity which is being sanctioned retains control of its borders but lacks trading partners, a blockaded polity is one whose sovereignty has been infringed.

Yoadm,

Why does the possibility of circumstantial bias utterly discredit the findings of Justice Goldstone but leave the findings of President Beinisch entirely unscathed?

[The Pita]

This is a big post I wrote while reading the entire thread at once. Some posts are from page 3 or 4. Sorries.

The report seems broadly fair, condemning Hamas for launching the attacks deliberately aimed at civilians in the first place, and then for Israel not being more discriminatory in the counter-strikes. In fact, I remember the discussion at the time was during the Israeli bombardment, not the actual ground war, when there was speculation that there would be no ground war. In retrospect the IDF should have gone in on the ground to target the rocket launchers right at the start instead of bombing the Gaza Strip in the random hope you might hit something vital (a couple of targetted assassinations of Hamas commanders aside).

The problem I have with this post is that Israel didn't bomb hoping to hit something. They only bombed places that did have terrorists and weapons in them.

My brother came home with videos of all of the places he bombed in the war. Every video, he showed me where the terrorist and the weapons were.

What does any of that have to do with your continued annoyance at the report having the gall to criticize Israel along with Hamas?

Because Hamas is a fucking terrorist organization with the stated goal of pushing the Jews into

That's why.

Yes, but that does not always or necessarily translate to "inflicting as many casualties as possible" either.

If that were the goal, I'd agree with you.

But it wasn't the fucking goal, and stop fucking repeating that fucking point. It's wrong. It's factually wrong on every possible level.

And how has this worked out the last like 10 times you've tried it?

First of all, I don't think Yoadm has ever tried it.

Secondly, this sort of war has never been done by Israel. Ever. This is the first time Israel had done a war in a way not 100% aligned with how the UN would want wars fought.

I realise i'm quibbling at extremely narrow details, but equating Israels investigations - toothless or not - of its soldiers illegal actions with the Hamas' open policy of illegal actions strikes me as symptomatic of why Israel is sceptical of trusting these people.

A long time ago, a group of soldiers got an order from their commanding officer that a certain Arab village had a curfew, and that everyone out after that time could be considered a terrorist. A group of people from that village were too far away to hear the announcement from the soldiers, came back late, and were shot. All of the soldiers, including the commander, were prosecuted for murder.

Just adding something. I'm writing it so people would understand that Israel does punish its own soldiers for monstrous acts, as well as to respond to Padraig's post.. That act was actually the one the law of Illegal Orders came from. Essentially, it says that saying "I was only following orders" is a crime, and that you're responsible for what you do.

Everything done by the military in Israel is open to judicial review by the independent Israeli judiciary. The Israeli government has refused to sanction a non-Israeli judiciary pleading sovereignty. I'm surprised Yoadm has been suggesting otherwise. Although, is now inching away from it.

I don't see any benefit in comparing what is going on in Gaza with the situation in Afghanistan. Unless somebody thinks what is going on is Gaza is fine.

I think what's going on in Gaza is a fucked up situation. The palestinians had an election: They had the corrupt assholes and the terrorist psychos. They chose the terrorists. The corrupt assholes all killed themselves by shooting themselves in the back, getting stabbed, and throwing themselves off of buildings. Then the terrorists started bombing Israel, a situation that persisted for years, and actually appears to be starting again. A bomb fell a kilometer from my school last week, and during this week another also fell nearby.

[WhiteHaven]

As for the Egyptians, they could for example give supplies, commerce and so on. Perhaps supply them with things they demand from Israel like Electricity and water. Basically if the Egyptians didn't want the close borders to exist these borders wouldn't by closed any more. And most of the rest of world thinks the same way for that matter. Only a few human activists and a couple of anti Israeli nations like Iran have tried to stop it. The rest of the world seems to think the situation is tolerable.

And again - how is Egypt going to pay for that? Egypt can't feed its own population. Also, it is something very understandable if the goervenement in Kairo does not want to have refugees all over their country. No, need for more poor people, is there? Egypt can't help. Israel can. They don't because they don't give a damn about the people - they are interested in landmass.

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8241247.stm

If it weren't Israel people would call that land-grab. But somehow nobody is supposed to say anything, which could criticise Israel...if he does he becomes an anti-Semite.

[mormont]

Bad analogy.

All analogies are flawed, but I remain to be convinced that the objections you raise - valid though they are - actually answer the point that I was using the analogy to illustrate.

The UNHRC is not neutral, it is a collection of biased bodies, most of whom have an Agenda. A commision created by a specific country respected by both sides as neutral (Like France, Italy and a handfull of others), would have received far better legitimacy. Or alternatively, a commision created by a body inside the UN which isnt so blatently anti-Israeli like the UNHRC.

On the latter, you would know better than I but I doubt that any UN body would have received full Israeli co-operation. On the former, a commission created by France or Italy independent of UN authority would have absolutely no mandate, authority or weight. Its findings would be simply dismissed by those who found them inconvenient.

[Yoadm]

Everything done by the military in Israel is open to judicial review by the independent Israeli judiciary. The Israeli government has refused to sanction a non-Israeli review pleading sovereignty. I'm surprised Yoadm has been suggesting otherwise. Although, the latter is now inching away from that position.

First of all, nations that can self-investigate should not warrent outside intervention since it errodes on their national sovrenity. What I did say was that if we had to accept a foreign commision (which I do not think is needed due to the high courts intervention), then it should be from a neutral country or organization.

The first paragraph in the report says:

And the paragraph gave a very general assesment of the mandate (to investigate... wow), and did not delve into the details, scope and limitations of it.

The report rather extensively addresses the Israeli investigations into the conflict

The report simply admitted that the Israeli's 'did conduct an investigation', but the commision did not adress the Israeli investigation's findings or evidence presented in it, which is the whole point of it, really.

Additionally while the conflict might have been reviewed in "real time" Israeli authrorities also denied access to the conflict for neutral observers which hardly paints it in a good light.

Preventing foreigners from entering a war-zone is standard practice in any army in the world, since the possible and probable death of such international's is wholly the fighting powers responsibility. Thus, while foreign observers can sometimes join attacking units, they are not allowed to freely rome a war-zone without supervision.

A specific problem with the Israeli investigation I do remember from the report is the absence of 50% of the information from a Palestinian perspective, which is exactly what you are criticising the UNHRC investigation for.

That is incorrect. Read the Israeli High Courts report I've linked you. They extensively give credit to Palestinian and pro-Palestinian eye-witness accounts.

Yoadm,

Why does the possibility of circumstantial bias utterly discredit the findings of Justice Goldstone but leave the findings of President Beinisch entirely unscathed?

I've allready pointed that out. For a number of reasons:

- The commisions mandate, parameters and limitations are set by said biased organization.

- The commision only investigated one side of the story, and that side wholly controlled by Hamas, who allowes or vetoes specific witnesses while cordoning off the commision to specific areas. In addition, the witnesses interviewed tend to be deeply hostile to the attacking power and would probably not present positive evidence about it. This all makes the need to adress the Israeli perspective far more pressing, but...:

- Goldstone did not even bother to adress the findings of Israeli internal investigations, the High Court report, or 500 pages of material sent to the commision by the Israeli defence ministry which included testimonies, aerial photographs, intelligence, etc..

And again - how is Egypt going to pay for that? Egypt can't feed its own population. Also, it is something very understandable if the goervenement in Kairo does not want to have refugees all over their country.

Egypts refusal to allow refugees in is not the issue. It is purposely preventing, like israel, non-humanitarian goods and trade from moving in and out of Gaza from its own border, thus, is no different than Israel.

[The Pita]

And again - how is Egypt going to pay for that? Egypt can't feed its own population. Also, it is something very understandable if the goervenement in Kairo does not want to have refugees all over their country. No, need for more poor people, is there? Egypt can't help. Israel can. They don't because they don't give a damn about the people - they are interested in landmass.

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8241247.stm

If it weren't Israel people would call that land-grab. But somehow nobody is supposed to say anything, which could criticise Israel...if he does he becomes an anti-Semite.

Israel has been supplying a population that hates it with electricity and food and water. It has also offered assistance (Admittedly very small amounts of assistance) to the Darfur refugees.

Additionally, the BBC is a bad source for news on Israel because it's very anti-Israel. I'm not going to say anti-Semitic. But the fact is that Israel is essentially a nation for the Jewish People, under its definition. Jew has become a race, because of years of persecution (The race theory, mainly, which was being circulated long before WW1, just so noone says "Godwin's Law"). And because of those two facts, it is hard to see Israel hate as anything but Jew hate. Some things are motivated by race, some aren't. Look at the sources for the article you stated. All of them Palestinian sources, or other sources that hate Israel.

EDIT- Re-reading my post, I realize that it sounds like I'm accusing them of racism. I'm not. I'm just saying that hating Israel could very easily be seen as hating Jews, and explaining why.

[Arthmail]

When your enemy is opposed to any meaningfull negotiation, and is sworn to your destruction, then you have no choice but to combat it, while doing whatever is possible to avoid civilian casualties. Unfortunately, many of the extremist liberals of today, if they lived in the 40's, would have advocated 'negotiating with hitler'.

This is where your statement fails, on several levels. I'll respond further to this, and your other rebuttals, later tonight. Its time to go to work. But i will say, i find your equivalence of your conflict with some of the Arab nations and the idea of the dreaded liberals negotiating with Hitler to be misleading. First and foremost, that was sixty years ago. A great deal has changed since then, not the least of which is the western worlds interaction with the Arab world.

As for armchair generals only getting their information from the media, you really have no idea how often they put a positive spin on Israeli actions over here, do you? At least in Canada, there is nary a word of criticism. Whereas being firmly entrenched in the IDF would likely give you almost zero perspective on the situation, because you are right there in the thick fo things...but looking at it mostly from only one side.

[Yoadm]

All analogies are flawed, but I remain to be convinced that the objections you raise - valid though they are - actually answer the point that I was using the analogy to illustrate.

Pardon, but if your analogy does not represent our argument, then it is irrelevant. The commision's whole investigation was compromised by Hamas's controll of the combat zone, the 'crime scene', and the witnesses allowed to be interviewed, in addition to those being 'hostile witnesses'. Worse, the commision did not take into account the Israeli findings sent to it by the Israeli authorities (though boycotting it publically).

On the latter, you would know better than I but I doubt that any UN body would have received full Israeli co-operation. On the former, a commission created by France or Italy independent of UN authority would have absolutely no mandate, authority or weight.

First of all, Israel has historically cooperated with numerous UN bodies sent to supervise cease-fires, report on progress of troop withdrawls and territorial cessecion. In addition, what I said was that a neutral commision would receive more

credit than one sent by the UNHRC, but in my opinion it was not needed anyway, due to the high courts meticulous investigation into the fighting (Again, I would warmly reccomend you read it).

But i will say, i find your equivalence of your conflict with some of the Arab nations and the idea of the dreaded liberals negotiating with Hitler to be misleading. First and foremost, that was sixty years ago. A great deal has changed since then, not the least of which is the western worlds interaction with the Arab world.

A great deal has changed between Germany and the west, not between specific Arab governments and Israel, whom they are still sworn to its destruction. Thus, advocating Israel negotiate with a government unwilling to negotiate with it, which refuses to accept any solution that leaves Israel intact as a nation-state is just as bad as advocating negotiating with Al-Qaeda or Nazi Germany.

As for armchair generals only getting their information from the media, you really have no idea how often they put a positive spin on Israeli actions over here, do you? At least in Canada, there is nary a word of criticism. Whereas being firmly entrenched in the IDF would likely give you almost zero perspective on the situation, because you are right there in the thick fo things...but looking at it mostly from only one side.

False again. First of all, I constantly listen to the international media, and it simplifies allmost every issue regarding the conflict, positive or negative. Secondly, my experience doesnt just stem from the IDF, but my long personal research into the issue, my studies into international law regarding the conflict, and my personal interest in history and international relations. Indeed, the service in the army simply added another perspective to my knowledge, one that is not portrayed in the international media, which includes the extreme measures the IDF does do in order to minimize civilian casualties. Those are things that were not available to an outsider watching 'sky news' in the evening.

[ljkeane]

That is incorrect. Read the Israeli High Courts report I've linked you. They extensively give credit to Palestinian and pro-Palestinian eye-witness accounts.

I've already read it, there doesn't seem to be much evidence provided by Palestinian sources, it specifically admits that operating in "real time" limits it's access to information and it has a rather limited scope which doesn't address most of the issues raised in the UNHCR report.

Preventing foreigners from entering a war-zone is standard practice in any army in the world, since the possible and probable death of such international's is wholly the fighting powers responsibility.

That's not true, news organisations tend to to have extensive access to modern wars zones and this conflict was notable in that Israel denied access to media organisations.

[mormont]

Pardon, but if your analogy does not represent our argument, then it is irrelevant.

Whoever said that it didn't represent our argument?

Analogies are used correctly when they illustrate a point, or points. No two situations can be perfectly analogous or they would be the same, and the use of analogy would be banal. The key thing is the point that the analogy is being used to make.

That point is that people reach sound conclusions on the basis of partial evidence (in both senses of the word 'partial') all the time. The extent of Hamas' control over the evidence that was submitted to the commission is not at issue. At issue is whether there is any proof that the commission ignored this partiality and treated the evidence as if it were unbiased, complete and utterly trustworthy. You haven't answered this point, therefore the analogy is still relevant.

[WhiteHaven]

Israel has been supplying a population that hates it with electricity and food and water. It has also offered assistance (Admittedly very small amounts of assistance) to the Darfur refugees.

Additionally, the BBC is a bad source for news on Israel because it's very anti-Israel. I'm not going to say anti-Semitic. But the fact is that Israel is essentially a nation for the Jewish People, under its definition. Jew has become a race, because of years of persecution (The race theory, mainly, which was being circulated long before WW1, just so noone says "Godwin's Law"). And because of those two facts, it is hard to see Israel hate as anything but Jew hate. Some things are motivated by race, some aren't. Look at the sources for the article you stated. All of them Palestinian sources, or other sources that hate Israel.

But that is bushwa. I also criticise the (for example) the Turkish governement (I am a Turk). So does that mean, that I hate the Turkish people or the Muslims (which I am not)? You see, you can't argue like this. I have a friend who is a East-European Jew and we are having always a good time together. So no, not everybody who does not like what the Israeli governement is doing is an Anti-Jew or whatever.

Oh and unless somebody proves it, I am not going to believe that the BBC is anti-Jewish. Oh that's what my source also says.

The settlements are illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. Well...internatinal law is not a Palestinan source. It is the international law.

Another thing...I clearly understand why most Palestinans hate Israel, I do not say that it is right, but I can understand. If some cluster-bomb or whatsoever would kill my sis I would swear revenge. Understandable. It is also understandable that Israelis do not like the Palestinans after so many terror-attacks. BUT, and that is important, the Palestinans fell themselves cheated, they were forced to give away their land. It takes time to smoothe things, well what is Israel doing? Right, bombing. I am not going to say that I would not be inclined to feel hate against Palestinans if I were living in Israel, however, bombing and killing is not going to change anything. As I said earlier, hate breeds hate, and that is exactly what is happening here.

I think Israel is, in a cultural way, more developed that the West Bank or Gaza, so it would be wise if they would start helping to resolve the situation. It does not. That's why I call it land-grab and Imperialism what Israel is doing there, and that does not mean that I hate Jews.

@Yoadm:

I always thought that Egypt closed their borders because of the refugees and that they are providing goods, sometimes. If I am mistaken, I am sorry.

[Yoadm]

I've already read it, there doesn't seem to be much evidence provided by Palestinian sources, the specifically admits that operating in "real time" limits it's access to information and it has a rather limited scope which doesn't address most of the issues raised in the UNHCR report.

Im sorry but I doubt you had the time to read the long-winded report since last I posted it, or you would have noticed the great deal of info they give on testimonies to pro-Palestinian organizations like Doctors without Borders, or Palestinian eye-witness accounts presented in the case.

That's not true news organisations tend to to have extensive access to modern wars zones and this conflict was notable in that Israel denied access to media organisations.

False again. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the foreign press is allowed to join combat troops, not run along inside a war-zone. Indeed, Israel allowed foreign press to join some of its fighting units, but like NATO, it did not give them a mandate to go run around inside the war-zone, without protection, supervision, because many of them would probably have died, that being the responsibility of Israel to keep them safe.

Whoever said that it didn't represent our argument?

Analogies are used correctly when they illustrate a point, or points. No two situations can be perfectly analogous or they would be the same, and the use of analogy would be banal. The key thing is the point that the analogy is being used to make.

Problem is that your analogy was not parralel in any way to the commision in Gaza. In a private trial, a witness is dismised if he is a hostile witness. A crime scene is 'compromised' if one of the sides controlles the information coming out of it, and the whole court process is abolished if the court refuses to take in witness accounts and information from the other side. This isnt just 'partial evidence', this is 'partial biased evidence in a war-zone controlled by one of the parties with the commisions refusal to adress the evidence presented by the other side'. A tad different, I would think.