Not sure I understand what the distinction is here - if Israel doesn’t prevent settlements from being established or dismantle any that come into being, that would still be NO if it was putatively “against the will of the state?”

@RobinBruce There is a clear distinction in Israeli law between legal and illegal settlements. All building in Israel must be approved by the state. A settlement might be legalized after it's created but if it's not, it would certainly face legal action against it.

@Shump So say illegal settlements (still) exist when the war concludes with “a resolution that does not enable the construction of new [legal] settlements”

you’d close the market as NO?

@RobinBruce No it's phrased this way intentionally. Actions after the war that legalize settlements are possible. What I mean there is that I will resolve early if, for example, Hamas retains control of the Gaza Strip after the war.

@Shump Ok, fair - I’d prefer a market that is a bit more binary on there being significant settlement activity in Gaza regardless of the “legal” classification, but that’s what the duplicate market button is for

EDIT: https://manifold.markets/RobinBruce/will-more-than-250-israeli-settlers?r=Um9iaW5CcnVjZQ

@Shump re: "A settlement might be legalized after it's created but if it's not, it would certainly face legal action against it."

I was under the impression that many settlements exist in a limbo state where they are not legally approved by the state but takes no legal action against them. Not true?

@MartinRandall Settlements on Palestinian private land are illegal under Israeli law and the court forces the government to act and clear them even when they don't want to do so. Settlements that are not on private land sometimes stay in legal limbo for a while but are usually recognized after a while. I don't think there are settlements that stay in limbo indefinitely.

@Shump Wikipedia says there are currently ~100 "outposts" that are illegal under Israeli law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_outpost

I see that the outposts on Palestinian state land tend to get retroactive approval several years later. I guess I would call that "limbo" until the approval is granted.

They are protected by the IDF so they aren't "a bunch of randos who decided to live there against the will of the state". I appreciate that the "will of the state" can be complicated when the executive and the judicial branches are in conflict.

It appears to be difficult for Palestinians whose private property has been seized by Israeli settlers to bring the matter to an Israeli court and achieve a legal judgment in their favor, and then it is difficult to get that judgment enforced.

I guess I'd suggest changing the title to specify legal settlements, except of course they're illegal under international law, so that would also be potentially misleading. :/

@MartinRandall Well if they get recognized then this will resolve YES. But you can't just assume that they're not a bunch of randos who decided to settle against the will of the state until there's some sort of approval.

I think the title is fine, it asks if Israel will build them, so a bunch of random people doesn't count.

@Shump Sure, but they might exist in 2026 and get retroactively approved in 2029.

Generally I reject the idea that Israel is so unable to control its occupied territories that it is helpless to prevent Israeli civilians building settlements. The IDF has plenty of specialized equipment for destroying homes. If Israel chooses not to do so then the de facto will of the state is to allow the settlements to remain for the time being.

https://manifold.markets/NateWatson/will-israel-allow-settlements-in-ga

According to a poll I saw, only 22% of Israelis support resettling Gaza. Netanyahu came out against it.