This market will resolve YES if and when the English Wikipedia's page on the 2023 Israel–Hamas war (or the nearest equivalent if that page no longer exists) lists in its infobox "Result: Israeli victory" (or equivalent), and I am satisfied that this is not part of an edit war.
It will also resolve YES if the result describes the victor as some coalition of which Israel is a part, or describes the outcome in terms of the defeated side being Hamas or some coalition of which Hamas is a part.
Any other "result" after the war is no longer described by Wikipedia as "ongoing" will cause the market to resolve NO, including hedged statements like "Partial Israeli victory" or "Israeli victory with territorial losses".
Note specifically that if there is a frozen conflict that causes Wikipedia to update the infobox from "ongoing" to "inconclusive" or similar, this would be a NO resolution.
Resolution only depends on the first, non-dotpoint statement in the "result" section of the infobox. If hedging/concessions follow the intitial statement as dotpoints, or if they appear in the body of the article, this is not relevant to resolution. If the "result" comprises only dotpoints, the market will resolve NO.
The closing date for this market will be extended as needed until the market can resolve.
1,000
3.00The Russo-Ukrainian war has been listed as ongoing for 10 years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_and_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict
Think this is massively miss priced. Wikipedia has moved more pro-palestine recently banning the Anti-defamation league as a source and relabeling "attack on gaza' article to 'gaza genocide'. Even a total military victory (which i find unlikely) would likely resolve no with a "Israeli military victory, political victory in increased recognition of palestine.
Yom Kippur war has result inconclusive even though IDF got within 100km of cairo before ceasefire and had encircled the egyptian 3rd. Britannica calls the war an israeli victory for example.
82 lebanon war and 2006 war have titles that would resolve no
First and second intifada both have result 'uprising suppressed", some call the war a third intifada so how would that result resolve @chrisjbillington
I would put my personal odds of Total Military and Political Victory (HAMAS totally destroyed + not in power in gaza after war) at maybe 30%.
Odds Wikipedia title states unequivocal israeli victory ~ 15%
I'd even bet no on this market for lebanon where i see Hezbollah military defeat likely maybe 65% odds
but the wikipedia odds id only have ~ 35%
@Lurkingnobody Absurd that Wiki says ADL is too biased to use but allows Al Jazeera, the state media of Hamas patron Qatar. @SemioticRivalry
@Lurkingnobody yeah, the fact that this is based on what Wikipedia says is important enough that it should honestly be part of the title IMO. The actual question title "will Wikipedia state unequivocally that Israel won the 2023 Israel-Hamas war?" has a faaaar different price than the nominal title.
Israel is simply not prepared to deploy the hundreds of thousands of troops it would need to permanently occupy Gaza, much less manage food, water, infrastructure, utilities, ect. for the 2+ million Gazans. They're just going to keep to their narrow corridors and lob bombs at the rest of the strip, maybe with an occasional raid or two. When the war ends, either through settling into a status-quo frozen conflict or through an Israeli withdrawal, it definitely won't be counted as an Israeli victory. Probably a wall of text or "inconclusive" on wikipedia.
@JS_81 Agree they don’t want to occupy Gaza, but would note that they did occupy Gaza until they left in 2005. The pure military occupation lasted from 67 to 93. I don’t think at any point they required hundreds of thousands of troops for this.
As the last Gaza war described in Wikipedia as "Victory claimed by both sides", even after kills ratio of 10k to 100 people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Gaza_War
2.31k to 73 people if you do want to be precise
IMO, An unambiguous Israeli win would be if the Gaza strip becomes (de facto) Israeli territory, the former inhabitants become refugees outside of Israel, Islamic attacks against Israel reduce to below pre-war levels, and geopolitical tensions and sanctions return to pre-war levels.
For me it's about war aims:
Hamas wants to weaken Israel geopolitically. If western nations cut ties with Israel or Middle-Eastern nations unite against Israel in the long term, this is a point for Hamas.
Israel wants to subdue Hamas. If Islamist violence against Israel decreases in the medium-long term, this is a point for Israel.
IMO, the line between Palestinian civilians and Hamas is porous. Hamas is de facto the violent arm of Palestinian resistance to oppression, similar to the IRA being the violent arm of Irish resistance to oppression. As long as Palestinians are oppressed, they will keep refilling Hamas ranks, because oppressed humans don't just stop wanting to be free, and Hamas is the Schelling Point for anyone who has given up on peaceful means of protest (also Hamas probably wouldn't let other violent rebels coexist on their turf). This is why I say the unambiguous win scenario involves depopulating the Gaza strip and making it Israeli.
This makes it incredibly difficult for Israel to win the war, if not impossible. Any military action powerful enough to stop Hamas would likely mean international retaliation, and Hamas would happily become martyrs if it means Israel is destroyed.
well that is very strange definition, since this was not the purpose of the war , and there was no intention to make it all Israeli territory, nor the expulsion of the whole palestinialn population.
(the reason that I'm not betting here, is that the resolution criteria is too vague, and will probably resolve according to the political bias of the owner)
It's not a definition, it's an example of what it would take, IMO.
I agree that it's not the purpose of the war, but with its current scope the war looks unwinnable, so I imagine expanding the scope so that it becomes winnable. As it stands the war is not decreasing the number of Islamists willing and able to commit terrorism in Israel.
I wanted to suggest another way to think of this.
What will the other side will consider as defeat?
I think that should be part of the answer.
Of course that theoretically both sides can be defeated. But I think that helps to focus on what victory is.
I think that sinwar should die, and the Gazan should lose some land (this is very important for them) and I think if there will be no "deal" that it just end in a one-sided decision in an anticlimactic ending. With no hope for the future and with military regime untill they will chose moderate government that will be Palestinians defeat. (Better option will be if sinwar surrender with a white flag, but that is not possible ofc)