📢Re-Resolved to YES Per Conversation here and Discord.

I am asking Haws to see if I can get his final viewpoint also.

Yeah, this one is really hard. If I were the creator I'd go Yes. Hamas controls parts of the city and I haven't seen any sources saying that they are being resupplied. Wikipedia lists the siege as ongoing. ISW hasn't said the siege is over, either because Hamas has broken out or because Israel has captured everything, and I seriously doubt that either one has happened. But the creator showed a clear intention to resolve No and it's hard to say whether the evidence would've convinced him. He also wasn't at all definitive on that resolution and just wanted to defer to Mods so it's unclear how much weight his opinion should be given. I would vote Yes, but I do think this market should have a lot of deliberation.

Hi, I want to pitch in on this. Despite holding a large NO position, I sincerely think that this should resolve YES and I am prepared to take the loss. I believe that this resolution is based on a faulty understanding of the maps provided by Warmapper and the ISW. The area those cover in blue is "IDF clearing operations". These are areas in which the IDF is actively fighting against Hamas guerrilla warfare. The unoccupied areas are those where the IDF does not operate at all - these are controlled by Hamas. Those are not negligible areas. The ISW shows significant areas of Hamas control, and the ISW is a more reliable source which always cites their sources, than Warmapper, which is run by a single person. https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-december-31-2023 The Hamas battalions fighting there are not getting there through tunnels, they are local battalions, as evidenced in ISW reports. They are degraded but are still fighting. The operational definition of a seige holds - We have territories controlled by Hamas which are encircled and denied resources.

@SirCryptomind @WieDan

⚠Creator Requested Resolve

📢Resolution is NO

📝Proof In Comments.

If anyone objects, please let it be known asap and post proof. I do not follow war as much, especially this one. @SemioticRivalry If you have an opinion if this resolution is right or wrong, I highly trust your War analysis.

@SirCryptomind I object quite obviously. As the dude below put it. Even if 5% of Gaza is still fighting back and not encircled then this should obviously resolve YES. More realistically it’s a lot more than 5% but for the sake of it let’s say 5%. Still YES

@SirCryptomind Creator himself say it should be NO. He just refuses to resolve because he is on strike. I suggest following his logic.

@WieDan You’re evidently biased (as am I). However, it’s obvious that it’s still ongoing. Just because he’s the creator doesn’t mean he’s neccecarily right

@JayeshChatlani @SemioticRivalry Would appreciate your thoughts here

@JayeshChatlani obviously I am
But it's not just about the judgement of the facts themselves but the underpinning logic of the market. On that second part I think the market creator should be leading.

@WieDan I feel like that’s very stupid. I feel like it should either just result in the rounded answer of what the % odds are. If NO were the real answer people would have obviously arbitrage this market before 2023 ended to max free profit. Efficient markets mean that giving the power to the creator is very very very dumb.

I have a thread in Discord for this market in discord. Please try to direct conversation there.

https://discord.com/channels/915138780216823849/938171760237477998/1191411080954662982

@SirCryptomind Can’t open link

@JayeshChatlani Try this one https://discord.com/invite/eHQBNBqXuh and than go to Market Discussion.

@SirCryptomind
Hey @chrisjbillington could you be an impartial judge here?

@WieDan Reading through things causes me confusion about what the creator was going for. Is it resolving NO because Israel has taken control of the whole area (doesn't seem true to me)? Or because there is increased resistance (is there meaningfully more than previous? I wouldn't have thought so)? You seem to be providing evidence for the former, but then they're suggesting resolution based on the latter? This seems strange - if Hamas have freedom of movement now, presumably they also had it earlier, such that the encirclement/siege (by the creator's definition) never existed in the first place. But I guess resolution is based on the end state, so even if the market's premise (that there was an encirclement at all) was false it can still resolve?

Regardless, the author has given a resolution recommendation, they're just protesting by declining to push the button. I see no reason they should be overridden, and I don't think things are clear enough otherwise to base resolution on anything else. This market was always a bet over the creator's thinking, so we should follow that.

@SemioticRivalry You know war better than me, How should this resolve? NO?

I don't want to leave everyone in a lurch, but a mod will have to interpret this question to resolve.

I will however provide my opinion to hopefully shed light on the defining comment below and the condensed version in the description.

1. The definition of Encirclement for the context of this question has direct reflections on "siege". I cited a number of different sieges in the past as examples while defining this. Although it may be upsetting to some.

2. The bulk of the Hamas reinforcements to what I understand are coming from the south through the tunnel systems to engage in combat or gorilla fighting as the IDF is CLEARING zones. This is super important for my suggestion on the resolution.

3. @nathanwei was bullying a resolution early on which is why I didn't entertain his scenario as much as it should of been. But what I will repeat and elaborate on, just so if 1/3 of the besieged is left, I think it would be hard to call a constant gorilla effort fighting a siege as the IDF are fighting in these areas within the city.

4. @WieDan I'd love to get the site you reference, I am using https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-december-26-2023 and https://israelpalestine.liveuamap.com/ which show slightly larger areas controlled by Hamas. If your mapping is up to date i'd probably consider the siege to have broken out into resistance fighting against the occupying force.

5. KEEP IN MIND This question is not about "Will the war in Gaza end" or "Will fighting in Gaza end" it is will it continue to be encircled. As you may have seen my examples of tactics,

   

   I think it would be safe to say that the typical siege has broken down. Why am I saying this? Because realistically in a scenario like this (look at Afghanistan and Vietnam), fighting can realistically continue as long as the tunnel system is active.

My suggestion for the resolution: My suggestion is that this should likely resolve NO. Fighting can continue to break out in the city pretty much indefinitely and that is not to the spirit of the question. @Eliza is probably the most just and attentive mod that I'd recommend handling this. And I don't mean to slap you with a shitty question, I know I commented back at you a lot in the whole ordeal that I and manifold had, but I really appreciate how dedicated you are to fair resolutions.

I suppose you all have until Jan 1 to flame me on not resolving, but it is what it is.

@Haws I used @/War_mapper, he posts on twitter and reposts on bluesky, mastodon, etc

@Haws Mind if I ask what ordeal you had with manifold?

@KLiamSmith long story man.

Read these comments for some context: https://manifold.markets/market/will-the-sp-500-close-higher-on-dec-6ae851780a4b

@Haws I’m sorry to hear you’re leaving, I liked your markets a lot. Thank you for running them, I’m sure it took a lot of time