Update 2025-20-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Resolution Criteria:
The market will resolve NO if there is no IDF troop presence in the Gaza Strip on the last day of 2025.
A buffer zone within the Gaza Strip borders counts as troop presence.
Annexed territories within the Gaza Strip are still considered part of the Gaza Strip.
Troop presence along the Philadelphi Corridor or at the Rafah Crossing counts towards presence in the Gaza Strip.
Soldiers held hostage in Gaza do not constitute a YES outcome.
Please clarify the territory of the Gaza strip.
What if it changes? What if there is a buffer zone? What about the Philadelphi corridor?
And just to be clear: we are talking about IDF soldiers, right? Not police or armed civilians?
@DanielFox9fff because of the 'still' in the description and when it was created (~anniversary of the attack), I sort of assume this means something like 'return to approximately the level of military presence before the october 7th attack'
@DavidFWatson that's very vague and up to personal judgement. Can you please give more objections resolution criteria?
Before 10/07 there were no IDF soldiers in Gaza at all—with the exception of those kidnapped by Hamas at various times.
I recommend a strict interpretation of "no troops" with exceptions for things like buffer zones and kidnapped soldiers.
@DanielFox9fff The market will resolve NO if there is no IDF troop presence in the territory of the Gaza Strip on the last day of 2025. I am not sure I understand your question about what if the the terrirtory of Gaza changes. The borders of the Gaza Strip (whatever its legal status) have remained the same at least since ‘48 as far as i’m aware. A buffer zone inside of those borders counts as troop presence. Even if territory within Gaza is annexed by Israel, the market would still consider that territory as in the Gaza Strip. The same applies to a troop presence along the Philadelphi Corridor or at the Rafah Crossing. As for soldiers being held hostage in Gaza, I will not count this as a YES given that it goes against the spirit and I think the plain meaning of the question.