So far so good.

A recent incident ended with multiple fatalities while radwan militants apparently wanted to take hostages. And this is only beginning 😞

Selling my NO shares here.

The odds that hezbollah holds some of their non-combatant Lebanese neighbors by the end of 2025 can easily be decided either way.

Too vague a definition.

I originally read the question as whether they’d take Israeli hostages, which would be a cleaner read of the query.

You’re counting hezbollah taking Lebanese hostages?

That’s qualitatively different than taking Israeli hostages.

@JeffBerman idk. If that helps with impeding Israeli assault, it doesn't matter much where are the people from.

Maybe I'm wrong. But stating that only Israeli hostages matter doesn't feel right.

@ICRainbow by that logic they're already holding Lebanese hostages, since they store missiles in their houses and almost certainly at least some of those people are coerced into it

@ShakedKoplewitz I didn't see reports where people were handcuffed to the missiles. On the contrary, lots of people left their "co-livings". I've seen some calls to remain, but no statements from HZ telling the IDF to stay away.

Really interesting question, but I think the definitional grey area around hostages makes it difficult to bet. I can envision a situation where Israel accuses Hezbollah of taking hostages but Hezbollah says they're prisoners of war (or something else). Given that hostage taking is war crime, there's a big incentive for definitional disagreements.

People captured = YES.

@ICRainbow I mean they're kind of a mini state. They probably already arrest people.

Taking a prisoner and taking a hostage are just not the same thing at all. I retract my complaint about the definition not being clear, but now I think the title is just wrong.

@Fion Hm. If they arrest on of theirs eg for treason that's one thing. However if they arrest and hold someone else.. that's a different one. If, then, they say things like "no, you can't bomb X, there are prisoners of war", that would be a clear YES. If they "invite" government officials into their Dahie bunkers, that would be YES, as they would benefit from it, while endangering those officials.

What would be the right title for this?

@ICRainbow I don't know. Previously you said "people captured = YES", but now it seems to only be if they use them to impede Israeli attacks, which seems different. Or maybe if they "benefit" in any way, which seems different again.

@Fion Have you seen the Cambridge def below?

@ICRainbow is that the one in your reply to Lemming? I think it leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and while it overlaps with the other three or so definitions you've given, it's not necessarily identical with any one of them

Will soldiered be considered hostages, or only civilians?

@Lemming Yes, like in "holding people to prevent enemy advance".

Prisoners of war (POWs) are kept in custody because their release would be too costly and would impair the strategy of the army that captured them. Hostages, by contrast, are a resource that facilitates their captors' strategy.

Is this by end of year 2024?

@mattyb During the current conflict. I tentatively set it to end of 2025.