Inspired by this article:
Resolves NO if, by the end of the current conflict, Lebanon either ceases to exist as a country, undergoes a significant revolution, or otherwise becomes unrecognizable in policy/government to its predecessor.
For example:
If Lebanon breaks into multiple different countries, this question resolves depending on whether Lebanon still exists as one of these countries. If a coup occurs, but the country doesn't change much as a result, this question resolves YES.
If Lebanon's government becomes completely inoperable but otherwise isn't removed from power, this question resolves YES. If Hezbollah is 'surgically' removed from Lebanon leaving the legal system as it is, this question resolves YES.
If Lebanon is annexed by foreign powers and undergoes a forced change of government and policy, this question resolves NO. If they simply remove every single head of state and replace them with someone else, this question resolves YES.
If Lebanon completely collapses as a country and is no longer able to function without outside intervention, this resolves NO (the logic being that if Lebanon is destroyed to the foundation and built again there is a brief moment in time where it will not have survived).
---
I will avoid betting so I don't root for either end. If anyone can come up with some wacky edge case scenario, I will be happy to clarify.
This question will close when one of the following is true:
Lebanon ceases to exist.
Israel declares the end of its military action.
1,000
1.00otherwise becomes unrecognizable in policy/government to its predecessor
Lebanon was already fundamentally broken since before the Palestinian invasion of Israel or even the Beirut explosion (the brokenness caused the explosion, not the other way around). They don't even perform the most basic function of a state, the monopoly of socially-legitimized use of force (because there's the parallel government of Hizbullah). So I personally would find it unrecognizable if it becomes a functioning state.
A big symbol of the dysfunction is their chronic inability to elect a President; in the last 10 years, the office has been vacant for over 4, with nearly 2.5 years of crisis before Michel Aoun was elected and a current 1.5 since the end of his term โ and there's no end in sight to the current interregnum. The last time they tried was nearly a year ago. The government also resigned when Aoun's term ended, and has been operating on a caretaker basis since then.
So, does it count if they suddenly get their act together?
Related but distinct question. They have this bizarre "confessional" system, where seats in Parliament and positions like the Presidency are given like spoils to different religious groups. This ridiculousness is considered necessary because the alternative would be a civil war; the last time they were able to hold a census was in 1932, well before independence from France in 1943. Does it count if they become, you know, normal in this regard? It would also be unrecognizable.
@0482 Yup, there are a lot of scenarios but I think at the end of the day we'll be able to look at the country and know whether it's the same.
This will either be a very boring market or one hell of a ride.
@GCS Well, will that new government keep the same constitution? The same method of election? The same approach to religion?
All of this to say, it depends how much of Lebanon would remain, well, Lebanon. If by the end of this hand-over nothing much changes beyond Lebanon's financial situation then this would resolve YES. The people in charge don't matter per se, more so what they're in charge of.