🏅 Top traders

This was definitely a bullshit resolution, never trusting any Brian T. Edward’s questions again. Resolutions are just made based of his opinion.

I will be resolving this YES this afternoon.

@BTE what was seized?

@MarcusAbramovitch They plan to keep significant portions of occupied land to create a “buffer zone” to protect against future attacks. Is it too early to start calling it Netanyahu’s Nakba? Cause it just rolls right off the tongue so naturally…

@BTE where did you see this?

I still don't think that counts. Gaza is still controlled by the terrorists known as hamas.

I'll be honest, I don't think you have any credibility on these conflict markets. Your personal views change how the market resolves.

@MarcusAbramovitch Israeli MK: 2 million Gazans should be encouraged to emigrate to change facts on the ground after the war

I am feel sick after reading about what this psychopath Smotrich says about the future of Gaza. If it happens Israel will have committed the largest ethnic cleansing of the 21st century so far. The younger generations of Americans will never stand for that and it will be the beginning of the end of the US-Israeli alliance.

@BTE The younger generations of Americans are predominantly cultural Antisemites anyway and the US-Israeli alliance will not survive either way.

@CertaintyOfVictory It’s not antisemitism to have compassion for Gazan civilians. Using antisemitism so loosely makes it meaningless.

@BTE in case it isn't clear, I do have ample compassion for Gazan civilians. Their lives are rough to say the least and it's not helped by the fact that
1. They are ruled by terrorists who don't care for them at all and steal all the aid money received
2. Have been taught since children to hate Jews and praise martyrdom
3. Have been taught that this is "their land" and that the most important thing is to get it back. This is of course aided by the Muslim/Arab world who want the entire middle east to be Islamically controlled.

All that said, yes, antisemitism is often used too loosely (not very often, but often enough that it's a problem). And I hope that a solution can happen where there is long-lasting, not just peace but flourishing for Palestinians.

@MarcusAbramovitch I am sorry you are incapable of making any arguments that aren’t ad hominem attacks on me. It’s so pathetically lazy and uninteresting to just accuse everyone who doesn’t agree with you of being biased against you. You should try harder or at least read a newspaper or something. I don’t know why more people don’t call you out for this bullshit but I am here for it.

@MarcusAbramovitch That’s better. But isn’t it the current government of Israel pushing a one state solution, not the Palestinians??

@BTE Alright, for this question "seize and occupy". The definition of "occupation" is always vague but in what way has Israel seized Gaza? The definition of seized means to overthrow the old government and instill the new one. This hasn't happened at all AFAICT.

I promise you, I do read about this a lot.

There are many factions in Israel pushing for different things. Your answer to "what was seized" was the finance minister of Israel saying that Gazans should be encouraged to leave? That doesn't mean Gaza was seized

@BTE And I never said having compassion for Gazans is antisemitism. I'm sorry that you feel the need to invent preposterous things I never said because it's easier to argue against.

Not seeing any reason this fell; North Gaza aint getting unoccupied in the next 3 weeks, even if further advances slow down.

@Panfilo one day of 2023 left, discount rates aren't at 10 pp/day. Anyone knows reasons for this discount?

@Panfilo you failed to forecast that BTE would see a profit opportunity and decide the market should resolve yes

@MarcusAbramovitch Now you are just being a jerk. Just to prove you wrong I think I will buy a bunch of NO rights before I resolve it YES. How much do I have to lose to get you to stop acting like I stole your toys at recess??

Title should probably say "According to me, will Israel seize and occupy..."

Israel has definitely not seized Gaza. Occupied with an army, yes. Seized, no.

@Domer This is a good point.

@BTE Israel actions are in line with international law's use of 'seizure'. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule50

@BTE Israel has seized tunnels, seized significant infrastructure and is occupying vast parts of Gaza. The spirit of the question should be in line with common sense as well, or it might come across as somewhat borderline.

The Geneva Conventions do not define occupation. Yet, the elements of an occupation can be found in Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, which affirms that ‘a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.’ This same standard is used to determine the existence of a state of occupation under the Geneva Conventions.

To determine whether a territory is under the ‘authority’ of a hostile army, the notion of effective control is used. The effective control test consists of three cumulative elements:

• Armed forces of a foreign state are physically present without the consent of the effective local government in place at the time of the invasion.

• The local sovereign is unable to exercise his authority due to the presence of foreign forces.

• The occupying forces impose their own authority over the territory.

https://www.rulac.org/classification/military-occupations#collapse1accord

@BTE Can you clarify if a situation like the one that's going on right now would result in a YES resolution? Occupation here is the standard definition, of a country having control of a territory but not having annexed it, right?

@Shump Yes you are correct. I have other markets about annexation.

@BTE Given that the IDF has entered Gaza and now are in control of a significant part of northern Gaza, in what sense have they not already seized and occupied territory? I think some clarity is needed on the criteria for “seize” and “occupy” and in what sense such criteria has not yet been met.

@BTE Shouldn't this have already resolved YES?

@Akzzz123 No? Why would it? Sending forces in for a military operation isn't the same as occupation.

@ShakedKoplewitz @Akzzz123 The market criteria states:

Includes Gaza per the comments below from 6 months ago. >> This means occupying Gaza would resolve YES, wanted to make sure this was clear.

@MickBransfield Operationally, this seems importantly different (a limited scope operation with the goal being to free hostages and destroy Hamas, not to administer Gaza themselves).

@ShakedKoplewitz

@Blomfilter yet the market title clearly states "seize and occupy".

@BTE What does the "seize" part mean in this case and how does it apply to the current operation?

@AlekseiBelostotskii I asked this same question above (8 days ago) and no clarification has been given.

@AlekseiBelostotskii Pretty sure seize just means they take it by force.

@Shump pretty sure it also means annexation

@Blomfilter While I find that debatable, given BTE's rather extreme anti-Israel views he's probably going to be pretty happy to resolve any possible ambiguity against Israel.