"Controlled" in the common sense meaning: it simply means that Israel is the entity with the monopoly on the legitimate use of force. This does not mean there are no instances of violence breaking out, it means Israel unlike Hamas are the ones calling the shots and having a presence on the ground.
There are no requirements for community participation, voting, or anything of that nature. It's about control and possession of territory.
1,000
3.00Is this what you mean by war mappers or is there a more specific source? And if it's this guy, do you mean the blue territory? @connorwilliams97
@DanPowell Nothing that’s done by a government that hasn’t held an election in 2 decades is legitimate
@connorwilliams97 What method will you use to determine legitimacy? I see one proposal for elections, but that clearly isn’t a thing under actual consideration.
In what sense do you anticipate the legitimacy of the use of force to change, ever?
@DanPowell I will be resolving based on territorial control maps by war mappers. I may reword my resolution criteria to discourage these sorts of arguments.
@connorwilliams97 That’s a pretty significant change to the resolution criteria, to “exercises effective military control, as determined by [source]”.
@connorwilliams97 Just so you're aware, sources like the ISW only show the extent of Israeli operations, not "control" in the sense that you are defining. A lot of those blue areas are areas of active fighting. Israel does not run Al-Shifa hospital, for example, despite it being in the blue area.
Gaza will not be totally under de facto control of Israel at 2023 year ended because of the recent response from the Middle East, Russia and China. These states opinion will influence the outcome of this war, Gaza will be hit severely but Isreal will not be able to claim victory as it will trigger multiple tensions between its surrounding region and external influence. The United States May stand with Israel, taking Gaza as a territory by 2023 can not be achieved as tensions will escalate into a fully blown war between countries of interest.
@Broseph That's fair, but that's not the way I'm interpreting it. Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005 and has not been an occupying force since then. Feel free to suggest improvements to my stated criteria or wording.
@connorwilliams97 I’m far from any sort expert on the situation but it seems like if they can effectively control borders, resources, and infrastructure from all sides, it’s less of an independent state and more of a quasi-state enclave.
The only way I could see a distinction in “control” being made in this situation is if the Egypt-Gaza border was uncontrolled before and is now locked down by Israeli forces, as that would be a pretty dramatic shift in state agency. That might be my own personal resolution criterion but your “legitimate use of force” is fine too IMO. I just wonder how one could hope to identify a semi-objective definition of “legitimate” in this context.
@Broseph The market defines control as a monopoly on the use of violence. Pretty accurately describes the Hamas situation before the war.
@Shump I understand what you’re trying to get at, but to be clear, “legitimate use of force” =/= “use of violence”.
@connorwilliams97 I would appreciate comment on whether you see any difference between your market and this similar one? https://manifold.markets/Nostradamnedus/will-gaza-be-under-complete-militar
Seems like the large difference in probability might stem from:
- your question maybe doesn't require "complete" control of all the territory (maybe you are just referring to Gaza city, in the northern half of the Gaza strip?)
- your question seems to include other options that aren't "military occupation", like some kind of puppet government which is "de-facto" under the thumb of Israel? Or some kind of more normalized "police occupation" that isn't a military occupation (like the system of Israeli checkpoints in the West Bank, or something)?
