Same market but with resolution at the end of 2023:
Gaza is currently, in a "de facto" sense, governed by Hamas. The organization's foreign policy has led to blockades by all neighboring countries. Given this situation as my baseline perspective, I intend to evaluate the market based on Israel meeting most of the criteria in the list below by the end of the year, or other indications that would lead a reasonable person to infer that Israel as complete control over the territory. I will employ my own judgment, supplemented by input from other stakeholders, in cases where there is ambiguity.
This list was added here to elucidate some people who were arguing that israel already had control of Gaza at the begining of the conflict. It as generated lots of controversy and apprehension in the betters. It serves as a guide and not as a checkbox I will be strictly following at resolution time. if there is still something I should further clarify please add some more comments. I am trying to go by some sort of common sense definition of political (not only military) control, including being able to defend and provide for the population in an organized and CONTROLLED faction.
"De Facto" Control Over a Territory implies:
1) Governance and Legal Systems: The ability to make and enforce laws [while allowing citizen participation in decision-making processes (this is optional)].
2) Security and Border Management: Ensuring internal safety and defending against external threats, while regulating who comes in and out of the territory.
3) Public Services and Utilities: Providing essential services like healthcare, education, and utilities such as water and electricity.
4) Economic Oversight: Control over financial systems, including tax collection and monetary policy.
5) International and Environmental Relations: Maintaining international relationships, disaster preparedness, and resource management.
Possibilities that have generated confusion and their resolution:
1) Distopic military dictatorship style control, resolves YES.
In this case criteria only the citizen participation section of criteria 1 would not be enforced.
2) Terror attacks by Hamaz are happening in a otherwhise controlled territory, resolves YES
In this case the internal safety section of criteria 2 would be lacking but everything else would still lead me to resolve it as YES.
3) Hamaz having a section of Gazan territory still in its control, resolves NO.
4) Population self governing (with or without IDF present), resolves NO.
5) Population in anarchy (with or without IDF present), resolves NO.
Also I should refer that at the end I will look for information on wikipedia, major news outlets and other similar reputable sources to make my decision. I will also take into consideration market discussions in case of possible ambiguities.
Related questions
I think this question title is confusing given what's written in the description. The criteria seems to be beyond "de facto" control.
most people would argue that Israel has de facto control over gaza in May 2024, outside of Rafah perhaps
Maybe the title could be altered to "control monopoly" or something?
@MartinRandall much less people here, also it is likely Israel is not going to able to control Gaza before the end of the year.
If there is widespread crime and resistance such that the laws which are enforced are a very selective subset of laws, would condition 1 be met?
More concretely, I suggest there are areas where police don’t go except in groups of three or more because of concerns of safety of the police, that condition 1 doesn’t apply.
And I feel like if condition 3 is unclear about whether those services are provided to all residents or whether the capacity for those services is available; I expect that Israel will have the ability to provide those services and choose not to or to limit access to them as part of their political goals.
@DanPowell As for the first concern, bad or dificult policing still equates to policing so it would resolve YES. By a similar metric mexico government would not be considered in control of large parts of their contry, which I don't agree with. Also in most contries there are difficult sections of large cities were policing is difficult. If the army was still involved and a guerrila warfare was going on I would need to ponder on the specific details of the situation.
If israel was the means to provie services but chooses not to do it this would imply that israel as "control" on how to allocate its resources so it would resolve YES still.
@JoaoPedroSantos Under the “ability to provide/allow third parties to provide but chooses to prohibit” meaning, Israel is already in control of most of the resolution criteria, right? They can apply collective punishment to groups of people, exercise the property rights of abusus, regulate who is allowed in or out even on the Egypt border, deny public services, and do international relations.
The only thing that they don’t have yet is taxation.
@DanPowell Even in your skewed definition they would still have a massive military force (Hamaz) controling large swats of gazan territory, in no world is this control. At least not for me.
@JoaoPedroSantos Hamas does not have the ability to meaningfully enforce laws, cannot perform border management, cannot provide healthcare, power or water, and is unable to garner significant international resources.
Granted, all of those failings are the direct result of Israeli-based interference in them.
If your assertion right now is that nobody has de facto control of Gaza right now, sure. But Israel meets more of those criteria than Hamas does.
@JoaoPedroSantos Would you say that any entity has had all five of those criteria met over Gaza since 1968?
@DanPowell Larger debate than what I would like to have in a chat based platform and also only tangentialy related to the question at hand. But in essence yes, Israel some chunks of time and Hamaz some other chunks of time.