Will Israel invade Lebanon in September? | Polymarket Tracker

This market is closed and no longer accepting bets.

7424

Comments

1

Market

0

Comments per hour

Summary

The discussion on whether Israel would invade Lebanon in September has become contentious due to disagreements around the resolution process, predominantly managed by the UMA protocol. Many are frustrated that the vote outcome didn't align with the popular vote, which some allege was manipulated by powerful interests such as Kevin Chan. Legal threats, including appeals to the CFTC and accusations of market manipulation, are frequent as bettors demand a fair review of the resolution. Concerns over the transparency and integrity of the voting and arbitration process have dominated discussions as stakeholders call for either a resolution change or at least clarity on the decision-making process.

The primary conflict centers around the discrepancy between the popular vote and the final result, with accusations of manipulation and unfair control by key individuals and interests within the voting system.
Calls for a more transparent and fair resolution process are echoed throughout the discussion, as participants push for adherence to the explicit terms of the market's foundational rules and actual events that occurred.

Comments

The Lebanese people are singing in the streets now that it has been confirmed that they weren't invaded last month.

Liked by aaaa1, Justifax and 23 others

Imagine we get good evidence tomorrow that Trump said "mog" six weeks ago. A video surfaces that no one saw during the last P4 decision. Nobody would argue we ignore that evidence simply because it came out before the last P4 decision. The only difference here is some old time users bought No shares in this case before doing any research.

Liked by chad, n/a and 22 others

I see the argument for No know: "all arguments for yes should be thrown out on a technicality". I don't think Uma is going to be hoodwinked that easily. You have no substantive arguments for No. We yes bros have endless high-quality sources suggesting the invasion began in September.

Liked by n/a, n/a and 21 others

🤺JustPunched

Have I lost my lost my mind? What is the evidence they invaded? IDF says no invasion, AP says they didn't see any troops cross the border, and Hezbollah says they didn't invade.

Liked by n/a, n/a and 20 others

Let me rejoin the fight by bringing it back to 50/50 parity and acquiring a nice 10k shares to participate in this glorious reconquest

Liked by n/a, n/a and 20 others

Tie me to a missile and fire it at UMA. I am ready

Liked by aenews2, DeucePapi and 20 others

We’ve established that the Israeli ground operation started September 30 (100%), and that it intended to control territory by early October (97% so far). So, did the operational plans change, or did Israel already intend to control territory on September 30? The argument against intent to control on September 30 originates largely from Israel’s ongoing public claims about the operation, which we have already discounted. Meanwhile, on September 30, Israeli officials told CNN that there would be “no long-term occupation” of Lebanese territory. This suggests that they intended short term control over Lebanese territory. (https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-lebanon-war-hezbollah-09-30-24-intl-hnk#cm1pnn1ki000l3b6mbkmq0ye5) Walla’s military correspondent reported on Oct. 1 morning that, per “the decision of the political echelon,” “the purpose of the limited ground maneuver is a high level of operational control in the area.” (https://news.walla.co.il/item/3695334) Thus, early inside reporting demonstrates Israeli intent to control on September 30. Finally, it should be noted that Israel’s national security cabinet approved the plan for the ground operation on September 30, and there have been no amendments since then to their authorization. The weight of evidence points strongly towards operational control being planned from the start of the operation. A decision of NO for this market would be anti-empirical and anti-common sense.

Liked by n/a, n/a and 19 others

DonaldinhoTrumpito

For what it's worth, chatGPT is on yes side now : https://x.com/Ragnarok_1er/status/1842063415692443663

Liked by n/a, n/a and 18 others

All market rules on this site going forward should be as follows: “This market will resolve to "Yes” if JustKen and his group of cronies decide that is what suits them best, if not they will choose No. Objective reality is not relevant”

Liked by n/a, n/a and 17 others

thismaysoundcornybutloveistheanswer

This market will inevitably resolve to Yes, since “Before November” has been resolved to yes, and the invasion started at 30th of September *ET time*

Liked by n/a, n/a and 17 others