Resolution criteria
This market will resolve to "Yes" if, before June 30, 2025, the vessel carrying Greta Thunberg is subject to an attack by Israeli forces. An "attack" is defined as any deliberate act of aggression resulting in damage to the vessel or harm to its occupants. The primary source for resolution will be official statements from the Israeli government or military, credible international news agencies, and reports from the Freedom Flotilla Coalition. If no such attack occurs by the specified date, the market will resolve to "No."
Background
On June 1, 2025, climate activist Greta Thunberg, along with 11 others, embarked on a mission aboard the vessel Madleen, operated by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition. The mission aims to break Israel's blockade of Gaza and deliver humanitarian aid. This follows a previous incident on May 2, 2025, where another vessel from the coalition, the Conscience, was reportedly attacked by drones in international waters near Malta. The coalition attributed the attack to Israel, though Israel has not confirmed involvement. (apnews.com, reuters.com)
Considerations
Given the recent history of confrontations involving vessels attempting to breach the Gaza blockade, there is a heightened risk of similar incidents occurring. Traders should monitor official communications from the Israeli government, statements from the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, and reports from reputable news organizations for developments related to the Madleen's voyage and any potential responses from Israeli authorities.
Update 2025-06-04 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has clarified that if the vessel's occupants are arrested but peacefully surrender after being stopped by patrol boats, this will not be considered harm or an attack for the purposes of market resolution.
Update 2025-06-04 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): An attack by unmarked means (e.g., a drone) or one that is not officially claimed by Israel will count if it is determined to be "obviously Israeli". This determination would be based on evidence from the listed primary sources, such as credible international news agencies or reports from the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, indicating Israeli forces were responsible.
Update 2025-06-08 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has provided a specific definition for the term "obviously Israeli", which is relevant if an attack is by unmarked means or not officially claimed:
An attack will be considered "obviously Israeli" because, due to Israel's control of Gaza, it is determined that only Israel has the reason to attack the ship.
Update 2025-06-09 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has indicated they will wait for the vessel's occupants to be released and to speak to the media before making a final resolution decision.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ4,117 | |
| 2 | Ṁ3,234 | |
| 3 | Ṁ1,571 | |
| 4 | Ṁ883 | |
| 5 | Ṁ783 |
People are also trading
Update 2025-06-04 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has clarified that if the vessel's occupants are arrested but peacefully surrender after being stopped by patrol boats, this will not be considered harm or an attack for the purposes of market resolution.
Based on the description of this market I think this is a clear NO.
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/6/11/freedom_flotilla
Here we have a much more detailed description of the timeline, which describes a drone hitting one of the ship's wires, and (more importantly) the white spray forcing everyone inside, and having some sort of chemical change into a black slippery substance when touched. The white spray sounds like a nonlethal suppression weapon of some kind. I think this affirms the earlier theory many Yes holders had about it. @PoliticalEconomyPK
"And then, by 10, 15 minutes, we have a visit of a drone, a close-range drone. This drone was trying to come very close to the ship, and he gets hit, one of the wires of the mast, and he left on the water. So, like, two minutes later, we got another two big drones, one with a very powerful light, and the other was throwing over us, over the whole ship, over the cabin, over us, like a paste, a white paste. You know, we didn’t even know what it is, still there. So, we get closed inside the cabin, the cabinet with our life rafts, ready to get assaulted, because we trained, as I said. And in like half an hour after this throwing this seed, this paste of — kind of find that when you touch it or get in contact with it, it get black and very, very slippery, you know, in the — for example, in the floors of the deck."
@placebo_username Multiple MSM sources ran with the story as a "white irritant substance." I think it's fairly slanted to defer to the Israeli sources simply not talking about it on one side, versus the people who were sprayed on the other. The IDF aren't claiming they didn't spray it and that it wasn't caustic, they're simply not talking about it while multiple sources from the FFC are describing it as such. It was harmful to the people on board. What's happening now is that we don't know the name of the substance, so I can't link to a wikipedia article describing it as a particular crowd control irritant used at sea or whatever it is.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y264x3nnno
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/freedom-flotilla-coalition-gives-12-111737335.html?
(two MSM articles using the irritant quote) @PoliticalEconomyPK
@Panfilo I was just going by what was/wasn't in the passage you posted, hadn't read the full article. Is there a passage in one of the three articles you've linked which describes either damage to the ship or harm to a passenger? If there is such a passage and you think it's credible/convincing, might be worth posting as a top-level comment to make sure it gets seen.
Another interview came out, this time a French participant who says that there were armed commandos who “boarded the vessel and took control by force”. There were follow-up details as well, though some of them refer to time after they made landfall which I don’t believe should count. But there seems to have been forced sleep deprivation starting while they were still on the boat locked below decks, which I think counts as harm too. I will post more info as it comes out. @PoliticalEconomyPK https://www.newarab.com/news/exclusive-french-medic-details-brutal-gaza-flotilla-raid
Update 2025-06-04 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has clarified that if the vessel's occupants are arrested but peacefully surrender after being stopped by patrol boats, this will not be considered harm or an attack for the purposes of market resolution.
Based on the description of this market I think this is a clear NO.
@PoliticalEconomyPK This seems to have resolved too early. Yes it seems they peacefully surrender, but I don't know how that's relevant to being attacked first. I thought we were going to wait to hear more.
@PoliticalEconomyPK Yeah, this was too fast. The first paragraph of the description says "An "attack" is defined as any deliberate act of aggression resulting in damage to the vessel or harm to its occupants." so if the boat was damaged, this could still be Yes even if the occupants LATER surrendered. You should unresolve.
Can @mods take a look at this? There seems to be a significant amount of disagreement over this resolution (I have not traded in this market).
@Calibrate This is my interpretation of how the site guidelines see the situation:
The mod guidelines are pretty hands-off regarding scenarios like this. There is a rather high bar for a creator's own resolution being overruled by mods directly. It basically has to be "fraud". The not-mod guidelines do have a section that is relevant here:
If a market resolution has some ambiguity and there is dispute over the correct resolution, the creator will have the final say. However, we usually recommend an N/A resolution under these circumstances, especially if the ambiguity is at the fault of the creator.
My interpretation of the situation: Mods probably are not going to intervene immediately. I'd suggest giving participants a few days to collect information and bring it to the attention of the creator. Depending on what kind of information comes out, the creator could could end up changing their mind and unresolving to wait for more information, or re-resolving to Yes or N/A.
Note the specific part "if the ambiguity is at the fault of the creator" -- if you can point out to the creator that some action they took invalidated the predictive result of the market, they can consider if N/A is a more appropriate result. If they are adamant that the No resolution is correct, I doubt anyone will step in.
Greta claims they were attacked: https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/4Bk67E/greta-thunberg-har-landat-i-paris
@pt_____tr i read both articles and apart from the single statement that they were "attacked" there was no detail whatsoever. How were they attacked? There was no recounting of events.
@pt_____tr Not in English for me unless I google translate, but she does say attack. Still would like more details of the exact methods though.
@Panfilo Sorry, I should have clarified: the video is in english. But there's still no step-by-step explanation of the attack yet.
@PoliticalEconomyPK So you should wait for a detailed recounting of events, like you said you would before.
@PoliticalEconomyPK Half of them are still detained and the rest just got back to Europe after being detained for over a day. Greta gave one short interview. Seriously, just give it some more time; I often extend controversial markets for months to wait on more info!
@PoliticalEconomyPK it seems absurd to me that you would consider one brief interview with one passenger who claims to have been attacked to be sufficient evidence that they were not attacked.
@enderman thats not the only source i went by. As I said earlier Rima Hassan's team is also calling it an interception and arrest and not attack.
Even the most pro palestinian aljazeera is calling it an interception
@enderman also I would have considered greta's statement had she delved further into the events of the day.
@enderman im open to accepting any responsibility and agree to involve mods in a re resolution if things change, but as they stand now this is a clear NO
@PoliticalEconomyPK What if she still does, this month? What if someone else does? If that detailed account includes things like damage to the boat and/or harm to the people, would you then agree to re-resolve via mods?
@PoliticalEconomyPK Okay I appreciate that (I was writing my post at the same time as you). I think you could have held off, but I will change my rating in the mean time.
@PoliticalEconomyPK the window for harm to the occupants closed when the flotilla got docked at Ashdod. If any harm comes to them in Israeli custody that should not be considered
@PoliticalEconomyPK I appreciate the willingness to change the resolution if/when more information comes out about what transpired. Ideally we would have just waited before resolving.
Unless I misread, I don't think it was implied we should include harm to them after the events transpired. Not sure why that was brought up. The focus is on the wait for the release of more information.