Resolution criteria
This market will resolve to "Yes" if, by the end date, a plurality of traders agree that Madleen's interception was an "attack." The determination will be based on the number Yes and No traders on this market.
Update 2025-06-09 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has indicated they will probably resolve this market when the 'main attack market' resolves. The plurality of traders would then be assessed at that time.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ28 | |
| 2 | Ṁ28 | |
| 3 | Ṁ26 | |
| 4 | Ṁ19 | |
| 5 | Ṁ9 |
Traders on this market or traders on the “parent” market? I sounds like here like we should vote in the comments?
@PaulBenjaminPhotographer if they were pepper sprayed that probably counts. That's the part I'm waiting on for confirmation.
@PaulBenjaminPhotographer if a traffic stop was performed by someone with no jurisdiction I bet you’d feel differently.
@KevinCurry I wasn't clear, I was more hoping for some self reflection as to why you thought there was any question about the legitimacy of the capture (bonus - it was *required*).
Is there a source in your life that is giving you bad information?
'I don't like it so it must be illegal'?
Was the boat travelling and not driving therefore does not require a license?
Just basic ignorance?
"The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements" vs "Not in International Waters™" - one of these phrases appears in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 (para 96).
@PaulBenjaminPhotographer lol, san remo. What is the year 2010? You’d think in 15 years you could come up with a less pathetic bastardization of the law.
@PaulBenjaminPhotographer One, it’s pretty hard to argue that Israel has been at war since 2011 a predicate for San Remo. Two, Under the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994), a blockade may be used in wartime, but only if five legal conditions are met:
it must be formally declared and publicly notified
it must be effectively enforced in practice
it must be applied impartially to all ships
it must not block access to neutral ports or coastlines
it must not stop the delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians.
There’s zero argument that Israel has not been illegally holding up aid to Gaza.
When do you contend that Hamas ended its armed conflict against Israel? Any particular year with no rockets or mortars fired that you'd care to suggest?
You'll also need to give a citation for 'must not stop the delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians'.
The closest I can find (and I'm quite familiar with the document) is "102 - The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival"
Which requires stopping food to be the sole purpose, not as a side effect of preventing weapons shipments, the stated aim of the blockade.
Bonus - The aid on the boat has been forwarded into Gaza via a more practical land route (103 - ...technical arrangements... under which such passage is permitted)
Suggested reading - the 'Legal Principles' appendix to the Palmer Report (or all of it, very little of substance has changed) which lays out the relevant law in plain English.
@PaulBenjaminPhotographer weird how you’re so familiar with the document yet ignore 94 which in and of itself makes the blockade illegal. Also funny how you hone in on 102 A but again conveniently ignore B. Such condescending tone from someone who takes wedding photos, lol. Nothing like defending genocide and apartheid adamantly online, right?