At the start of 2034 will the consensus by historians or other credible sources will the Israel Hamas conflict be described as genocide. Any or action directly leading from this conflict will also count. But in general it should involve either Israel or Palestine.
Since this is a bit vague a lot of conversation will need to be had in the comments. For a baseline if under a list of genocides Wikipedia has a genocide involving Israel and Palestine (It would have to start after or during 2023) this would resolve yes. If the United Nations votes and considers events involving Israel and Palestine a genocide this would also resolve yes. However if the United Nations considers this not a genocide (if UN doesn’t change by then) it will resolve no. If the UN doesn’t get involved this will resolve with more of a discussion.
For those who don’t know here is the UN’s definition of genocide https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
I will not bet in this market in case of controversy.
1,000People are also trading
@ImriGoldberg I've heard this claim a lot, but never seen any evidence of it. It's tempting for me to disbelieve it and assume the people claiming it only believe it because they themselves are biased. Are you aware of a good write up?
@Fion worth reading. Not as broad as all wiki is captured but there are definitely mechanisms that are exploited.
Check the intro to the companion piece for direct connection to manifold.
@TommyEagle thanks for sharing that. I'm afraid, having read it, I can't agree that it was worth reading. I basically learned that David Gerard is a crazy and unpleasant person who has successfully made some Wikipedia articles on rationalists and rationalist spaces into hit pieces, and it took too long for him to be challenged.
More importantly, I learned (in passing, right near the start) that there are two left-leaning sources that are considered reliable that probably shouldn't be, and that this is probably due to political bias.
But that feels more like saying "Wikipedia isn't 100% perfect and completely immune from bad actors damaging it" than "Wikipedia is already captured especially around political subjects". I continue to think that using Wikipedia as a resolution for this market is probably fine.
(I also learned a lot of decades old gossip about people I don't care very much about...)
@Fion Fair , sorry - can definitely understand not being interested in the specifics.
What interests me is the mechanisms of how edits are actually handled and how seemingly easy it is for one highly motivated individual to exert leverage.
Agree using Wikipedia is fine for this market since it’s clearly stated and you can discount accordingly before trading.
@TommyEagle it is normally done by teams of interested editors and this is how they win votes for changes.
On Israel-Palestine all articles are suspect and heavily corrupted.
Again, I've heard this stated, but haven't seen any evidence for it. I haven't read the entirety of all the pages myself (there's a lot!) but I don't see big problems with what I have read. (Of course, this isn't evidence in itself, because I could very easily be blinded by my own bias, but my point is that your assertion isn't patently true and won't persuade anyone unless justified.)
@TommyEagle No worries at all. I asked for a write-up and you gave me one. You're right that it is an interesting demonstration of how things work behind the scenes. Some of it was like a malicious and intentional version of "Citogenesis".
I expect it's much easier for niche topics to be "captured" and "corrupted" than big ones. There is a lot of material on the Israel/Palestine conflict, including in statements, articles, and papers from governments, academics, international orgs, left-wing media, right-wing media, religious groups etc etc. The trouble with a niche topic like "LessWrong" is that there just isn't that much written about it in "reliable sources" and so it's easier for a motivated editor to give undue weight to what material does exist (and even be responsible for creating source material that will form a significant part of the tiny corpus). But that's just not true for Israel/Palestine. I remain open to a case that there is some other dynamic going on that makes these pages biased, but so far I haven't heard that case.
"However if the United Nations considers this not a genocide (if UN doesn’t change by then) it will resolve no."
https://manifold.markets/Shump/will-the-icj-determine-that-israel
@nathanwei @JamesF The UN does, unless a general assembly vote is required for the criterion.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-strip-un-commission-finds
@Chumchulum What happens if the UN's ICJ determines it's not a genocide? The ICJ is more important than this UN commission. @JamesF can you clarify?
@nathanwei The ICJ case is ongoing, with Israel having submitted their counter-statement two weeks ago.
If anyone talks about it at all, it will be described as one. If it is not, that is because you swept it under the rug.
Almost the entire Israeli chain of command has eagerly described the intended effects of saturation bombing and near-total blockade.
The time of pedantry is long done and whoever holds on to their "non-genocide theory" of the Gaza War will be unable to advance it. As excusing Israel is no longer a priority for the US mediacracy, such denial will simply fade unspoken. Your chance to divest is now.
Seems very hard for this to be YES if the ICJ case is NO, so shouldn't be higher than this:
https://manifold.markets/Shump/will-the-icj-determine-that-israel
Resolution criteria already met, resolves YES
@ChinmayTheMathGuy The market is about what the opinion will be in 2034, not whether it will have been considered genocide some time prior to 2034.
@JamesF Is being put on a list of genocides enough if there is a disclaimer like:
"As there are varying definitions of genocide, this list includes events around which there is ongoing scholarly debate over their classification as genocide and is not a list of only events which have a scholarly consensus to recognize them as genocide." ?
Seems that it shouldn't be enough and you should need a consensus.
Jep:
UN commission says Israel is committing genocide in Gaza
The UN can mean many things. I would specify the International Court of Justice (ICJ), this way it's resolved by a judicial process, as opposed to political vote.
What do you think about the 10 year gap; enough time to escape the quagmire of the present to view it objectively?
@GazDownright I don’t want to use only the ICJ as a way to resolve this mostly because did want a consensus and the ICJ could be off from that. Especially if the ICJ doesn’t get involved again. But the ICJ will definitely be one of the factors helping resolve this. For your second question I think that ten years out is enough time to distance from October 7th but maybe not enough time to distance from the conflict as a whole.
@JamesF historians and a UN vote including countries trying not to implicate themselves are two different kettle of fish. I find it tricky to bet on this market if, say, a UN security council decission vetoed by Israel's allies could lead to a resolution here.
@GazDownright If such a vote seems to be affected by only Israel or their closest allies but almost everyone else considers it a genocide I would consider resolving yes instead of no much like how Turkey doesn’t believe they genocided the Armenians but if it is more 50-50 or most don’t consider it a genocide it will probably resolve no
@JamesF Okay, that seems predictable enough of a guideline for me personally, thank you for clarifying.