1,000
3.00I recommend traders to avoid and exit this market until @datachef defines their resolution criteria clearly.
@datachef seems to imply that their own definition of annexation is different than the conventional one, while also not refusing to answer how they actually define it.
I will also note that @datachef is the largest trader and has bought a large "YES" stake. So alternatively, you can probably just buy a "YES" vote on this market and gain easy money.
@mqudsi that's quite a stretch. By that argument south Korea annexed North Korean land because part of the DMZ is north of the border.
@ShakedKoplewitz WTF are you talking about? Of course a buffer zone inside Gaza counts. You are delusional.
@ShakedKoplewitz but it involves seizing new land. You seem to be ignoring that bit in favor of classifying the outcome. And we both know it’s going to be anything but a DMZ. that stands for “demilitarized zone” when in fact Israel will arm it to the teeth. It won’t be no man’s land, it will be where the IDF operates from. Completely different. South Korea and North Korea never enter each others territory but that is not ever going to happen with Israel. So it’s not a DMZ and never will be. It’s an annexation.
@datachef the difference is that unlike north Korea, Gaza doesn't have a non-terrorist government that can be trusted to maintain demilitarization. The function is the exact same - it's an area on both sides of the border designated as a separation buffer zone, not an area annexed for civilian purposes (which is what annexation means). How it's staffed isn't relevant here.
@ShakedKoplewitz this standard isn't a prediction market, it's an attempt at a motte and Bailey argument - look for a minimum defensible definition of "annexation" that you can use to accuse Israel of. It's clearly not the central meaning of the word, and if you were honest about fact-based discourse you'd label this market appropriately (e.g. "Will the Gaza/Israel demilitarized zone stretch further into Gaza than prewar" is clear, neutral and unambiguous).
@ShakedKoplewitz so stealing land is okay and not annexation if the military does it and keeps it??? By your definition Russian never annexed the Donbas in Ukraine because they haven’t moved any Russian civilians in. Nonsense.
@datachef You mentioned Donbas, but Russia officially annexed Donbas by enacting a law. Israel has also officially annexed regions in the past, including East Jerusalem and the Golan Height - also by enacting new laws.
Are you considering a military occupation as an annexation (something that no one else does)? Has Israel annexed the west bank? Has the US annexed Afghanistan?
@gpt4 well technically now that you say that I realize annexing Gaza isn’t necessary because it’s already inside Israel. And the legal annexation was conducted under military occupation so that is hardly by law.
@datachef East Jerusalem and the Golan height were also under Israel. I think you should just define what you mean by Annexation.
Also note that if you consider military occupation as annexation, then you should be aware the the ICJ recently ruled that Israel has been militarily occupying the whole of Gaza even before the war. So given that, does that mean they already annexed Gaza and that the question would resolve no, because there is no new territory to annex?
Agreed, this question needs more detail. Coverage implies that there are Israeli settlers interested in moving.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/31/israeli-settlers-eye-return-to-gaza
Does "annex" mean formally (like the golan heights), no formal annexation but the construction of a legal settlement (like the west bank), an illegal non-sanctioned settlement, or military presence?
(To my mind the last one clearly doesn't count and the second last is borderline - probably only if the government doesn't take any steps to dismantle it - but according to the strict definition of the word annex only the first should actually count).