The International Court of Justice has indicated provisional measures. You can read the order here: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf

Please submit any relevant evidence you would like me to consider when resolving this question in the comments.

@J89502 Who has to have considered that they defied it? Israel? ICJ? Biden admin? You?

@nathanwei As I wrote in the comment below:

> I would be inclined to rely on the ICJ if it holds that Israel has or has not defied its orders. In the absence of an opinion from the ICJ, a resolution of the security council, or strong independently verifiable evidence, I think the appropriate resolution would be N/A, as it would not be clear if Israel has defied an order by the ICJ in such a case.

In hindsight, I should probably have listed more potential authorities for resolving the question (but I think it's too late to do that now, especially as those I have in mind have already answered the question), as the ICJ and security council will probably not have opined on it by July 1.

Assuming there is nothing definitive from the ICJ or security council by then, I will decide based on whether I think there is strong independently verifiable evidence that Israel has defied or abided by the order and resolve N/A if I don't think there is such evidence either way. Another option for resolving it would be a poll among manifold users who have not traded on the market. Do you think that would be a better option?

@J89502 I’m just not going to trade on this kind of market. You need something less subjective.

I'd like a little more clarification on what defiance would look like. Does it need to be the official policy of the Israeli government or, say, the IDF, that they're ignoring the provisional measure, or what have you, in order for this to count? What would de facto policy look like, if we think that's a viable alternative? One of the PMs is asking for a cessation of certain types of rhetoric, but there's only so much that can be done in that regard. If that PM is granted, and there's still occasional rhetoric from coalition backbenchers, (but not anyone in the war cabinet) would that qualify?

Suppose the ICJ reaffirms that Israel must not commit war crimes. If some random soldiers do, and there's no evidence that this is the official policy of the IDF, (and potentially the IDF says that they're investigating and people either trust or don't trust this statement, w/e, not relevant) would this qualify?

@Najawin Good question. I think it would need to be deliberate defiance by those who have effective control over the state, but I don't think it needs to be through an official policy.

The resolution of the question depends heavily on the precise wording of the relevant provisional measures. For example, if the ICJ were to accept South Africa's proposed language regarding rhetoric[1], I think efforts to punish the backbenchers (e.g., attempts to expel them from their political parties or from the Knesset, or even the commencement of criminal investigations) would be required by the resulting provisional measures as a response to speech that constitutes "direct and public incitement to commit genocide."

If the ICJ reaffirms that Israel must not commit war crimes, and some random soldiers do, the resolution would likely depend on how other officials react, if the ICJ expresses a view on whether that reaction is sufficient, and if there is a broad international consensus on the adequacy of the reaction. I would be inclined to rely on the ICJ if it holds that Israel has or has not defied its orders. In the absence of an opinion from the ICJ, a resolution of the security council, or strong independently verifiable evidence, I think the appropriate resolution would be N/A, as it would not be clear if Israel has defied an order by the ICJ in such a case.

[1]: See 144(6) on page 83 of the application instituting proceedings. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf