This question resolves to the time period in which the New York Times unequivocally reports that an Israeli ground invasion into Rafah has begun.

Reports of air strikes, raids, covert operations, etc will not be sufficient for a resolution. In general, ambiguous situations in which the NYT does not use the word "invasion" will not be sufficient to resolve this market.

This market will resolve to the time period in which the qualifying reporting is published, which may not be the same day that the reported events occurred.

If a ground invasion begins on a Sunday but the Times does not report on it until Monday morning, this market resolves to the week containing the Monday the reporting appeared on the Times' website. Op-Eds and similar will not be sufficient for resolution.

Resolution will be based on Eastern Time (UTC -04:00). If there is no invasion reported before June 1st, this market resolves to "Not before June".

Clarification on recent events:

Multiple NYT reporters have started to use the word "invasion" somewhat interchangeably with with the less-controversial terms "offensive", "campaign", "assault", and "operation".

This is a significant development for this market's resolution, but it is also a clear example of equivocation.

From Google/Oxford:

e·quiv·o·ca·tion

noun

The use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.

"I say this without equivocation"

This market requires unequivocal reporting of an invasion, in contrast to reporting which distinguishes the current operation from an invasion or reporting which equivocates on the issue. Please keep this definition of equivocation in mind when deciding how to trade on this market.

Examples of sufficient-but-not-necessary conditions for this market to resolve to "invasion":

• The headline (the large-font text) of any non-opinion article featured on the NYT Israel-Hamas Page clearly describes Israel's actions in Rafah with the word "invasion", and is not quoting someone else. This resolves YES regardless of if the sub-headline (the smaller font text) uses another word instead of invasion.

• The headline of any such article does not use the word invasion, but the sub-headline does call Israel's actions an invasion and the article itself emphasizes that choice, using the word "invasion" many times and more than any of the other terms they have used as a substitute.

• Regardless of use of the word "invasion", the NYT unambiguously reports in more than one article that the conflict has now escalated into the long-anticipated "full-scale" military action. This reporting must make it clear that new events are a major escalation from what has previously been often called as a "limited operation".