Seeing the discourse over the last couple of days, I am keeping the market open for the time being, as was indicated as a possibility by my initial post. That means that Yes is probably less likely than 94%, but I will not be selling my own Yes shares right away so that they can contribute to other sellers, as I want to continue in good faith on the mana side of things even as the political side of things can get heated. Once things have evened out a bit, I will then sell my shares and not purchase more for the remainder of the market. @traders

ABC Australia has a follow up to the Haaretz story from July that reaches its own conclusions drawing on disparate testimonies and reports; the article pretty much paints a conclusive picture of Hannibal being enacted, that at least one or more hostages or civilians died as a result, and that the Israeli army has de facto acknowledged the events while clearing soldiers who fired upon civilians of wrongdoing and continuing to officially pin the blame on the Palestinian factions.

While the ABC article opens with “Israeli forces have killed their own citizens,” for the purpose of this market I believe the death of just Efrain Katz should result in this being resolved as YES.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-07/israel-hannibal-directive-kidnap-hamas-gaza-hostages-idf/104224430

The money quote:

Tank officers have also confirmed they applied their own interpretation of the directive when firing on vehicles returning to Gaza, potentially with Israelis on board.

"My gut feeling told me that they [soldiers from another tank] could be on them," tank captain Bar Zonshein told Israel's Channel 13.

Captain Zonshein is asked: "So you might be killing them with that action? They are your soldiers."

"Right," he replied, "but I decided that this is the right decision, that it's better to stop the kidnapping, that they won't be taken."

@mqudsi @traders I’ll be resolving Yes today unless a strong counterpoint is posted.

@Panfilo I would like to raise 2 objections:

The resolution criteria say that "This market will resolve Yes if the investigation mentioned above confirms that the IDF killed Israelis under these orders, in the course of the intial October 7th attack, via strikes on targets reasonably suspected of including hostages. Only one confirmed death is required, but crucially, it does have to be in the general timeframe of the initial attack and withdrawal, and the strike must have been intentional under the Hannibal Doctrine; to kill an Israeli rather than allow them to be taken captive."

1. Zonshein was asked "So you might be killing them". It seems that their primary target was Hamas, and they were willing to shoot Hamas despite the fact that Israelis may be killed in the crossfire. His response does suggest abiding by the directive although its unclear if he would have been given the same answer about shooting an Israeli going into Gaza if Hamas members would not also be hit at the same time. It seems that their primary target was Hamas, not Israeli's, and it could very well be that they would not have specifically targeted Israeli's being brought into Gaza if they were not in the immediate vicinity of Hamas members

2. The resolution criteria says that "the investigation mentioned above" has to confirm that the IDF killed Israelis based on these orders. It's under those criteria that people bet. To me it seems this refers to an IDF internal investigation, has this criteria been met? The ABC article seems to be using different evidence.

If you think both objections are not sufficient then resolve, although I'd like to here your reasoning

I absolutely agree with @CelebratedWhale. The description clearly states that it will resolve based on the result of the investigation and nothing else. Moreover, the ABC article even implies that
1. Israeli were never the intended target of an attack. It was never clear which vehicles were carrying hostages. Their death was only a calculated risk to stop the invaders.
2. There were no instructions to follow the Hannibal Directive, only the spontaneous judgement of individual soldiers.

One more point: Even if it gets confirmed that some soldiers targeted hostages, explicitly following the Hannibal Directive, a YES should require at least some evidence that the actual death was a consequence of that, as opposed to collateral damage

I still think the result of the Haaretz investigation stands: "IDF Ordered Hannibal Directive on October 7 to Prevent Hamas Taking Soldiers Captive."

@CelebratedWhale This is a reasonable argument to allow more time for news outlets to confirm or contradict these interviews.

The spirit of the market would include investigative journalism to a high and mostly unbiased standard, not just state self-investigation. The standard for Yes would be met if an IDF member using or performing a firing solution was shown to believe they were about to likely kill any number of hostages, and to proceed anyway under the ideological justification of the HD. They do not need to say “executing Hannibal Doctrine” while doing it, or to be able to personally see the hostage they kill. Hence, the Captain’s interview could be seen as sufficient if it is not disputed. All that said, I am not in a hurry to resolve, and am open to more feedback.

Edit: And to clear up another point, the captain wouldn't have fired upon hostages mid-abduction if there were no Hamas members nearby, because then they would just be traveling or hunkering down, not being abducted. The doctrine is implicitly about ignoring collateral damage; an unescorted hostage could just be rescued, as has happened during the current conflict.

@Panfilo From what you say, you were ready to resolve based on the ABC article mentioned by @mqudsi, and after this fact no news have come.

There was an objection, but they brought nothing new to the table, and I'd expect someone with a vested interest to try to answer your invitation for counterpoints.

The status of this case is exactly the same now as at the point in time when you were ready to resolve. In my opinion you can safely make the same call now as you did then, and resolve yes.

@GazDownright I don’t want to cut people off mid-discussion for a politically charged market with over 50 participants. I said I would resolve if there was no pushback, and there was, so now I’m taking some time to consider it and see what else folks say.

@GazDownright Until yesterday, my investment in this market was exactly Ṁ10. I only invested more to demonstrate my confidence that the proposed YES resolution is absurd. You and @Panfilo have roughly the same stakes as us, so I don't see why you would even present that as an argument.

Both of us presented multiple arguments. We pointed out where the ABC article does not meet the very high bar set by this market. We mentioned that the market required the Hannibal directive to be involved and that it suggested a resolution based on the results of the internal investigation. @Panfilo responded to those and I understand by now that "the spirit of the market" means "whatever the author had in mind", so I won't argue with that.

But the most important argument still stands: There is a huge difference between knowingly risking the life of Israelis while fighting the opponent and the intention "to kill an Israeli rather than allow them to be taken captive", which is even highlighted in the description. We should expect some strong evidence that the death was a result of such intentions and not an accident. You must agree with that, or not?

@Sodann You presented arguments, but nothing new; the situation is the same as it was before. That you have to resort to hyperbole like 'absurd' further hints at the weakness of the arguments.

"... there is a huge difference..."

The Haaretz and ABC reports disagrees with you on this.

@Panfilo In your clarification you mention that a soldier must be "shown to believe they were about to likely kill any number of hostages."

I raise 3 objections:

1. You now say any credible journalism is fair game, however it is not under this criteria that ppl bet.

2. Even if we accept that the best way to resolve is with credible journalism, the article sent earlier still doesn't meet the new criteria in your pinned comment. The soldier was asked if their actions might kill a hostage, not whether their actions are likely (ie >50% chance) to kill a hostage. And your new criteria say they must have thought they'd likely kill a hostage.

3. Further, it's not clear that they were williing to kill a hostage under the Hannibal Directive, and not just willing to allow their death as collateral damage. Yeah if there were no Hamas members nearby they'd rescue them, but what if say they couldn't. If the hostage was already in Gaza and they couldn't get to them, but no Hamas members are nearby, would they have shot them? Unless the answer to that is a clear yes I'm not sure it's fair to resolve yes

Also this is just my immediate reaction, my opinion is subject to further change. I'll think more about it later when I have time

The objections being raised are, to be frank, stubbornly emotional rather than logical. The market is clearly summarized in the title and the presence of the Haaretz article as the primary reference makes clear the intent behind this isn’t what the IDF says or doesn’t say but rather, quite simply, what actually happened.

Even if we were to say it’s about what the IDF investigation uncovers, what would be absurd would be assume that the IDF would necessarily truthfully covey that information to the Israeli/general public, not when they regularly lie about investigations even to their closest allies. And the IDF doesn’t just lie about things that would make them look bad, they have a policy that lying to their own people or the general public is quite OK any time it would advantageous to do so (militarily or politically).

And the arguments about “likely” and “greater than 50%” are specious at best. The hostages were killed in the house at kibbutz Be’eri and the IDF acknowledged that they were aware the hostages were there (though they tried to misdirect by saying they fired “near” and not “at” the house, which makes no sense because they obviously fired where the militants were, and the ABC AU article has the testimony that contradicts what the IDF claims). The helicopter crew that killed the civilians (including Efrat Katz) were aware that there were both civilians and militants but their only excuse was that they “couldn’t tell” them apart - not that they had no clue they were there, but that they couldn’t tell who was who and deemed the collateral damage OK. The investigation by Yedioth Ahronot found that the order that came down was to stop “at all costs” any attempts by Hamas members to return to Gaza. What do you think “at all costs” means here? “Even if it takes a lot of ammo or if you might get tired in the process?” The meaning is quite clear. This isn’t anything new; it’s all in the article.

As for the tank officers and the “money quote” I posted above - if you don’t just try to be pedantic and say “I might kill them” doesn’t mean “greater than 50% chance” then you clearly haven’t watched or choose to ignore the actual interview that was shared by MiddleEastEye and linked from the ABC article as the source. It’s 3 minutes long and answers this question quite decisively. He saw the people in the back of the pickup truck, identified them as Israelis, probably other soldiers, and instructed his crew to fire to stop them from getting back. A tank doesn’t fire on a Toyota Hilux and “maybe, maybe not” it’ll kill them - there’s no question what happens when a Merkava unloads on a tiny pickup truck with people directly exposed in the bed. And he says “it’s better than them being kidnapped” so clearly he knew exactly what he was doing, what the likelihood of their death was, and still decided to do exactly what the Hannibal Directive says to do, what the order that came down to his unit instructed (“first fire at blockages point and if that doesn’t work.. execute The Order”) and what this market was intended to decide.

As the ABC article again demonstrated, there was an intention to prevent capture at all costs. This market resolution is not complicated.

@GazDownright I bought No down to 55% after a YES resolution was already announced. When I say "absurd", I mean it. You call our arguments "weak", "nothing new" and biased., you haven't addressed a single one on an object level.

The Haaretz and ABC reports do not disagree with me. They do not address that question (and neither does anyone here). ABC News does not make any strong claims at all. The title literally states "Israeli forces accused of killing their own citizens [...]". Maybe, lets talk again in a few weeks if there is a consensus among the media.

@Sodann that may be the title but the ABC article opens with a statement (not a quote from someone else but their own conclusion) “Israeli forces have killed their own citizens”, as I already shared.

@mqudsi I do not dispute that. But they do not claim that this was intentional.

@mqudsi This seems like a clear case of the motte-and-bailey fallacy. The strong claim is that "the IDF invoked the Hannibal Directive and, as a result, intentionally, killed Israelis because that is better than allowing them to be taken hostage". But then you argue only that "some soldiers tolerated Israeli deaths as collateral damage".

@Sodann these soldiers clearly said this was the order that came down. That the order was given was already substantiated by Bergman. You are dismissing everything else I shared.

@mqudsi I am not dismissing it. I just haven't responded yet because it is a lot and I haven't even seen you make the claim that any Israeli deaths were more than collateral damage. Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

@mqudsi I agree, by the way, that internal investigations may not be totally reliable. But that is the bar that the market seemed to set and it is a reasonable one because allows for a more objective resolution and avoids discussions like this one.

@Sodann I understand that reading of the market. A better description would have clarified that the investigation was presumed necessary for resolution because I didn't think someone with rank would say as much to the press. But the spirit of the market is, as mqudsi says, determining what actually happened.

Imagine if this line of reporting establishes that the question posed in the market's title is considered a "Yes" by most people closely following the story, but because of that detail of the description, this market resolved No at the end of December (ie. if the internal report never materializes). It would be fair for many people to consider that an even more egregious misresolution. I accept that I will likely get some non-5-star reviews either way I resolve, and that that is part of the consequences of making these kinds of markets.

@Panfilo As I said before, I won't insist on debating this point because I don't expect to change your mind. But I will say that I find it strange to see you say this because I remember another market where you advocated for a resolution that surprised most traders, based on the word "unequivocally" being buried in the description. According to your interpretation there, I believe that the New York Times still hasn't reported about an invasion of Rafah to this day.

But what do you say about the other point that I have mentioned multiple times by now and that everybody seems to ignore: "[...] to kill an Israeli rather than allow them to be taken captive." You highlighted those words in the description. Do you believe that collateral damage would satisfy that condition? I have not verified this, but I assume that it would breach Israeli and international law. If there is evidence for it then all major newspapers will report on that. Could we not wait until we see those reports at least?

@Sodann the evidence is there and the article even points out it happened in contravention to at least Israeli law. But as mentioned, the fact that Israel hasn’t court martialled anyone over this shows they are choosing to break their law and OK’d this at the highest levels of the military. The articles you want have already come out.

@mqudsi So, your position requires the assumption that the justice system of the IDF is turning a blind eye? That is already a very strong assumption to make. What about the ICJ? They are not exactly biased in favor of the Israeli government. And where does the article state that anyone broke Israeli law? That is your loose interpretation of it. But the article does quote statements like that the Hannibal directive "prohibited killing a hostage" and that "the directive did not apply to civilian hostages". Those clearly indicate a NO resolution.

The articles I want are reports from at least something close to a majority of "all major newspapers", as I mentioned. If there is evidence that the IDF broke international law by giving the order to kill hostages then that will be obvious.

"Hannibal at Erez, dispatch a Zik [attack drone]," came the command on October 7.

Resolves YES

@GazDownright I can recycle you own argument here: "The situation is the same as it was before." That report ist not new and until a YES resolution was surprisingly announced two days ago, the market seemed confident that it did not suffice for such a resolution.

The semantic quibbling isn't changing the facts.

there are a lot of questions and points being raised that aren’t grounded in fact. ICJ does not pursue criminal charges against anyone. It only adjudicates matters between different countries. ICC can pursue criminal charges but usually against world leaders and needs someone to bring the matter to it. And it almost never gets involved anyway.

@GazDownright When the Haaretz report about "Hannibal at Erez". Came out, you bought NO at 44%. Your own claim was not that obvious to you, apparently.

@Sodann You seem confused about prediction markets. Bets are not a way to "argue ones point" or to "back ones claim." How you spend your mana is up to you, but you can't infer opinions on others based on your own assumption about a particular bet.

@mqudsi You are right on the ICJ, thanks for the clarification. I also agree that an ICC ruling should not be a requirement for a YES resolution. But if there is evidence that the IDF targeted their own citizens, it seems likely that someone will bring it to the ICC. If that doesn't happen, it's at least an indication that a YES resolution is not justified yet.