So if Hamas never formally surrenders, the war doesn't end?
By the definition in the description, is the Korean War ongoing?

@HarrisonNathan exactly

@zerfaezza This is a trick market then. Hostilities will end in Israel first, but there will never be a treaty.

@HarrisonNathan I could add add that a war ends when the army of both countries leaves the territory of the other nation. There are many possibilities which could happen in Israel

@zerfaezza This hardly helps, as it leaves open to interpretation what the "territory of the other nation" is. If Israel were to occupy Gaza indefinitely, without hostilities, you would have to determine if Gaza is part of a putative Palestinian "nation."

@HarrisonNathan How would you define it without it being too vauge

@zerfaezza I would base the "end of a war" on the cessation of hostilities and consensus of historians and similar authorities. I would have it that the Korean War ended in 1953. I would not try to define the territorial boundaries of the belligerent nations, as these are disputed in both conflicts.

@HarrisonNathan I edited it, is it ok so?

@zerfaezza Way closer, thanks. I would reference scholarly consensus rather than the "international community" as it sometimes happens that some countries will not accept a frozen conflict as having ended.

@HarrisonNathan I wouldn't formulate it like this. Most people, me included, probably don't know what scholarly consensus means. I would rather use general international community, so that most countries have to accept it, rather than all

got the temporary version of this as well