Was going to invest in this market, but seeing OP resolve that Area C is not Israeli territory made me decide against it.

If you have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force on a region and your domestic law applies to it, it's part of your territory IMO.,

@Lexer My understanding is that Israeli domestic law doesn't (generally) apply in Area C? I'm getting somewhat contradictory information about that. Regardless of the status of Area C, if Israeli domestic law is fully applied in Gaza, this will resolve Yes.

To clarify, By this definition areas A and B wouldn't qualify but area C would?

@ShakedKoplewitz No, none of those would qualify, including Area C. The Israeli government has neither asserted that it is part of Israel, nor applied civilian law over it (although many on the right have been advocating for it, with some speculating that it may happen in the coming years), nor has citizenship been granted to the residents (which has similarly been advocated by many on the far-right, but still hasn't happened).

In contrast, both the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem would count as annexed.

@UnspecifiedPerson hm, area C has more-or-less Israeli civilian law over it though?

https://www.hamichlol.org.il/%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%97_C

@ShakedKoplewitz

Good question. Certainly one would say Israelis in Area C settlements are subject to Israeli law?

@GammaLaser My understanding is that the settlements continue to be under military administration, and not generally subject to Israeli civilian law? (If this is not correct, I am very confused by articles like this one from yesterday: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/11/middleeast/israeli-minister-annexation-occupied-west-bank-intl/index.html "It is unclear whether his long-standing desire to apply full Israeli law in West Bank settlements has any chance of being implemented soon.")

@UnspecifiedPerson it's a mess. In theory area C is eventually (mostly) supposed to pass to Palestinian control by the Oslo accords, although the second intifada put that on indefinite hold. It is not formally annexed (unlike east Jerusalem). From the article:

In Area C, two different legal systems apply. Under the Judea and Samaria Regulations, extensive parts of Israeli law apply to Israeli residents in Area C, alongside special legislation issued by the military commander. Palestinian residents in these same areas are subject to Jordanian law, Palestinian law, and the military governor's legislation applicable to them. In Supreme Court Case 5666/03 filed by the Kav LaOved association, it was ruled that in certain cases, Israeli law will also apply to Palestinians working in settlements.

So tldr is that area C has mostly but not entirely Israeli law, but Israeli authorities have both civilian and security control, and in theory the policy of the Israeli government is... Well, TBH, deliberately ambiguous, on whether or not the long term plan is to annex it or give it up.

(Uncharitably, Bibi avoids saying anything to placate his right flank without provoking allies abroad who want a two state solution. Charitably, Israel would like to have a two state solution but can't explicitly say it unless it comes as part of a deal that would include reduction of support for terrorism. Either way I don't think the plans are relevant to our definition of whether they count as annexed).

@ShakedKoplewitz Okay, so the current settlements are a middle ground between Israeli law and otherwise. I'm setting the line at full civilian law, such that the existing settlements would not count as fully annexed at their present status. I'll add the word "full" to the description for clarity.