https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/28/middleeast/israel-military-strikes-gaza-latam-intl

@PoliticalEconomyPK suppose the situation three months from now is basically the same, with bouts of fighting like today every couple of weeks, and the "second phase" still pending. Would you rule that as a "permanent ceasefire" or not?

Doesn't look very "permanent" to me...

https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-if-hamas-doesnt-uphold-vow-to-disarm-we-will-disarm-them-perhaps-violently/

I will consider the ceasefire permanent and war to have ended 6 months after fighting has stopped

Edit. I changed it to 3 months

@PoliticalEconomyPK IMO if both sides declare unequivocally that the ceasefire is permanent, then this should resolve NO unless it falls apart immediately. Waiting one month would be more than enough.

OTOH, there are scenarios where the conflict could be suspended, even for longer than six months, but with the "rights reserved" to continue fighting if, eg, finsl status talks break down. In that case I don't know what the resolution should be

@AhronMaline 3 seems like a happy medium. Lets go with 3 months without fighting

@PoliticalEconomyPK my point isn't to bargain over the wait time - I'm actually a YES holder lol. I'm saying that "will the ceasefire hold" is a different and easier question from "does this arrangement count as 'permanent ceasefire'", and adding wait time doesn't help all that much for the latter.

@AhronMaline im not trying to bargain. The extra time is just to give me a clearer picure so that I can resolve it to the best of my abilities

@PoliticalEconomyPK looks like the scenario I mentioned is playing out - ceasefire with ongoing negotiations, and an implied return to war if (when) they break down... it would be helpful if you could spell out what your criteria are for the resolution

@PoliticalEconomyPK and @AhronMaline what about using the Gaza war - Wikipedia status infobox? As of today "Ceasefire formally in effect since 10 October 2025 under first phase of a peace deal"

As a suggestion to have an external verifiable source to determine the end date. Otherwise we would continue guessing what the market creator's threshold for ceasefire breakdown is.

@MiguelLM it's fundamentally a matter of language, how OP understands the concept of a "permanent ceasefire". Especially with a self-contradictory deal like this one: on one hand it was trumpeted as "the end of the war", but at the same time it promised that Hamas will disarm, clearly implying that the war will continue since they won't do so. I don't really see how Wikidedia sheds more light on the matter.

@AhronMaline for Wikipedia we have:

• the infobox used in >26K conflicts that can be used as reference. We can compare how this was used in previous Palestine ceasefires for reference

• the talk sections where several editors come to a consensus

For each OP's understanding, we have to guess what they think. We have many markets for ceasefires with OP's with different criteria.

This was just a suggestion. Maybe someone else has better ideas of sources to determine ceasefires end dates. Wikipedia as a neutral secondary source compiling the consolidated consensus of primary sources, seemed like a good option to me, but maybe you have better suggestions.

@MiguelLM TBH I always hate Wikipedia-based resolutions for markets; I see Wikipedia as a chaotic black box of competing political machinations, which I can't sensibly predict. I much prefer a single human arbitrator, especially when I can communicate with them and make my case.

But for this market in particular, I don't even see how using Wikipedia would help? It's not as if there's a binary flag there labeled "permanent ceasefire", yes or no. You still need to judge whether the situation qualifies.

@AhronMaline "I always hate Wikipedia-based resolutions for markets; I see Wikipedia as a chaotic black box of competing political machinations, which I can't sensibly predict. I much prefer a single human arbitrator, especially when I can communicate with them and make my case."
Your point also makes sense: you can talk to the author and clarify.

"I don't even see how using Wikipedia would help?"
Market description says 3 months. If by January 10th Wikipedia keeps saying the ceasefire is in place, the 3 months are over and resolves NO if Netanyahu is not ceased.
But, again, this was just an idea and the market creator will decide what the criteria is.

@MiguelLM ah, well that's the main point I'm taking issue with. I think Netanyahu will resume the war as soon as he can convince Trump that Hamas can't be talked into disarming, and I'm arguing that a ceasefire under those terms shouldn't be called "permanent" at all, unless Netanyahu clearly backs down from that (or Hamas actually starts disarming, haha). The time needed (to make it clear that they won't disarm) may be more than 3 months, or even 6; I don't think that should matter.

@AhronMaline there are temporary ceasefires used for different reasons: letting humanitarian aid in, negotiate a particular aspect, etc. These ceasefires have a clear end date agreed.

When the parties don’t set an end date, we call these deals “permanent”, and they are reached once signed. A different question is whether they will be respected later, but for the “permanent ceasefire reached” criteria of the original description I would say we were there already in October 10th, so 3 months should be more than enough in my view.

What if there is a ceasefire "while negotiations are ongoing" but without an end date? In which case, I imagine the negotiations will continue only until Israel declares them over...

Arb. This market has the direct opposite signal
https://manifold.markets/chrisjbillington/will-benjamin-netanyahu-cease-to-be?r=Q2h1bWNodWx1bQ

@Chumchulum they're the same markets

what happens if they agree to a ceasefire but then it's immediately broken with claims the other broke it first?

@Samaritan we will obviously be waiting a while before the resolution so the outcome is completely clear

Please extend the market close date

Added liquidity