🏅 Top traders

I feel like some might be unhappy with resolution without detailed arguments as to why, which is why I put off resolving for so long. Apologies for that.

From what I can find, there are very few relevant experts arguing the opposing case, it does sound like there is a strong enough consensus to resolve YES.

Here are some links (most of these are from around the time this market was created, it seems most of the discussion took place immediately and little about it changed in the subsequent months):

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/israel-starvation-used-weapon-war-gaza
https://www.justsecurity.org/89403/the-siege-of-gaza-and-the-starvation-war-crime/
https://www.reuters.com/world/un-experts-say-israels-strikes-gaza-amount-collective-punishment-2023-10-12
https://www.ungeneva.org/en/news-media/meeting-summary/2024/06/devant-le-conseil-la-commission-presidee-par-mme-pillay-conclut

There are of course voices on the other side:
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/complete-siege-gaza-in-accordance-international-humanitarian-law

https://www.hoover.org/research/laws-war-and-their-application-israels-fight-against-hamas

Nonetheless there does appear to me to be enough agreement that if someone were looking into this for the first time, they would come away with the impression that the consensus among international law experts is that these actions were a war crime.

Individuals are free to disagree, and this market isn't a judgement of truth - it's a judgement of what the consensus position is in international law circles, which I think has an answer clear enough to resolve this market.

Can you resolve this? @chrisjbillington

@mods Resolve boop?

@chrisjbillington I think this should resolve. It will just become more difficult to judge "consensus view" "by end of 2024" with each day passing.

@Primer yes. I'll give it some thought and see if I can resolve it, apologies for the delay.

New MSF report https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/sites/default/files/documents/MSF_REPORT_Gaza%20Life%20in%20a%20death%20trap%20Report_20241229.pdf

Traders: seeing as we're not far off the close date for this market, and the ICC arrest warrant is a fairly recent development, I'll wait until close to consider it as well as well as commentary and responses to it in the meantime.

Note that the market explicitly expected a judgement call would be needed in the absence of any official judgement, so to address some of the comments below, no, resolution does not hinge on an actual trial taking place.

A trial taking place was a priori unlikely enough, and the timescale for a trial even if it did happen long enough, that it wouldn't have been very useful to make a market that required a trial in order to resolve.

@chrisjbillington research regarding the question in this market is on page 124-130 of this Amnesty International report https://www.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/You-Feel-Like-You-Are-Subhuman-Israels-Genocide-Against-Palestinians-in-Gaza.pdf#page124

Here's an article by a collection of western military and legal experts, probably a good proxy for "consensus view of experts in international law". Should settle as no based on this.

https://open.substack.com/pub/mrandrewfox/p/the-case-against-israel-is-built?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=f8id0

@ShakedKoplewitz lol, a bunch of ex-military doesn't count as legal experts, for sure less than the actual legal experts on the ICC (btw you are lucky I actually went through the thing, I automatically ignore anything that starts with the word "antisemitic", bias much)

@Choms the group includes legal and military experts, aka people who actually understand situations like this (unlike the ICC, a political body which as noted in the piece makes repeated basic factual and legal errors).

@Choms (also if you don't understand the concept of antisemitism you probably don't know enough about any of this to have an opinion worth saying)

@ShakedKoplewitz as a citizen of a country that actually abides the Rome convention I disagree with you, and if we are going for personal opinions as you just did, I think all countries not abiding it or who plain dropped out, did so to protect war criminals, so I don't really care what you think about my "understanding" lol

PS: what IS antisemitism is decoupled from the fact when anyone says Israel is (ironically enough) performing a genocide, gets replied "hurr durr you are entisemistststt!!!", so I just ignore the actual word, not the concept ;)

@Choms Israel isn't in the Rome convention because it knew if it was it'd get spurious accusations of war crimes (heck the ICC doesn't even let the fact that it doesn't have jurisdiction stop it, it's not going to let a little thing like facts get in its way). Israel hasn't done any actual war crimes, and has in fact gone to lengths unprecedented I'm human history to supply its enemies with humanitarian aid while those same enemies actively hold it's people hostage for rape and torture. The concept of Israel as some kind of war criminal is so completely ridiculous that the one and only reason it even exists is endemic antisemitism (both direct and second degree, as people who weren't themselves originally antisemitic get their information from antisemitic propaganda).

@ShakedKoplewitz lol sure, if you want to tell yourself that be my guest, I had my fair share of fundamentalists and I don't argue with them anymore :)

@ShakedKoplewitz Israeli hasn’t done any war crimes? Surely you’d agree some IDF members have committed war crimes? They raped a prisoner on camera.

@ShakedKoplewitz no they didn't. Some prison guards allegedly sexually abused a prisoner (although there is some evidence both for and against, like the doctor's report) and are currently standing trial for it. Which, so long as Israel has a system for putting them on trial (which it does, and unusually quickly at that) is not a war crime by Israel. Every country has some rapists and the country isn't itself criminal if it enforces the laws against it.

@ShakedKoplewitz

I’m going to avoid getting sidetracked into a large debate. The market is about whether resources were cut

@GammaLaser no, it's about whether they were cut in a way which constitutes a war crime. Having a border check for freight crossing your national border to a hostile country isn't itself a war crime (if it were then the US is doing one on both Mexico and Canada right now).

(And just to answer your modified original comment, "no they didn't" refers to the "on video" part, which is one reason the evidence genuinely isn't clear. There is enough of it that they're on trial though.)

@GammaLaser as I said, no use debating with fundamentalists (on any spectrum), nothing you say it's gonna change his mind, but as you said going back to the topic of the market, for sure this is not gonna resolve NO because a handful of people (of which most of them are military) write a letter on some blog 😂 when all Rome signatories said they will (obviously) comply the warrant and there's a lot of evidence, if Netanyahu though he didn't do anything wrong he will just get a troop of lawyers and stand for the trial

the ICC did emit an arrest order precisely because of this, should this resolve yes? or he needs to be actually trialed? I'd say the warrant is at very least a for of "consensus among experts"

@Choms generally it takes an actual trial to assume guilt, yes, not just an accusation by a questionable prosecutor that got even basic facts wrong

https://open.substack.com/pub/mrandrewfox/p/the-case-against-israel-is-built?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=f8id0

@ShakedKoplewitz I think you're right. From Wikipedia: "Pre-Trial Chamber I stated that it found reasonable grounds that from "8 October 2023 until at least 20 May 2024" Netanyahu and Gallant bear criminal responsibility "as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts" and "as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population." Given the updated resolution criteria, I assume the creator would have good reasons to resolve as Yes. Amnesty's recent report is aligned with this conclusion. This is irrespective of whether the ICC is correct or not, antisemitic or not, and whether Israel might end up being cleared from these accusations in the future. As of today, the consensus among "experts" (for what they're worth!) seems to be that yes, Israel committed war crimes by cutting of supplies to Gaza. (edit: just seeing now that the creator commented on that 15h ago, so my message is useless... Wait and see...)

ICC, not ICJ, but still: "The charges against Netanyahu and Gallant include “causing extermination, causing starvation as a method of war, including the denial of humanitarian relief supplies, deliberately targeting civilians in conflict,” Khan told Amanpour." (EXCLUSIVE: ICC seeks arrest warrants against Sinwar and Netanyahu for war crimes over October 7 attack and Gaza war)

@adssx I don't think it is an official ruling yet

@adssx we're talking about a warrant that also mentions a dead man on the same list. It's not exactly fact based.