UK recognizes Palestine as a state at the UN General Assembly in September 2025
114
Ṁ42k
resolved Sep 22
Resolved
N/A

On July 29, 2025, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that Britain would recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly in September unless Israel takes substantive steps toward peace, including a ceasefire in Gaza and halting annexation plans in the West Bank. (apnews.com) This market resolves to 'Yes' if the UK formally recognizes Palestine as a state during the UN General Assembly in September 2025. Official confirmation from the UK government or reputable news sources will determine the outcome.

  • Update 2025-09-19 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Timeframe narrowed: Resolves YES only if the UK's formal recognition occurs during the UN General Assembly's High-Level Week (General Debate) in September 2025.

    • Recognitions outside High-Level Week, even within the broader GA session in September, will not count.

  • Update 2025-09-22 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Due to ambiguity in the criteria, the creator will resolve this market to N/A. See linked comment for details.

Get Ṁ1,000 play money
Sort by:

Hi @traders thank you all for participating in this market and the discussion. It is clear that the resolution criteria (and my clarifications) were ambiguous (eg. the 'first-time' to recognise Palestine vs the ongoing recognition)

To tell the truth, I did not expect this market to get this much traction so did not do a thorough job of outlining all the possibilities, I just used Manifold's AI-assisted question generation and forgot about it.

By my initial intent, this market should resolve NO. In my head it would resolve according to when the UK first recognised Palestine, and would that be at the UNGA high level debate (I honestly thought the UK would not do it any time before then, to give Israel the most time to meet their conditions)

However given the substantial debate and ambiguity about the market resolution, I am going to resolve this N/A. I understand this will upset some people but it does seem like the least bad option at this point. As a show of good faith I am also going to send some Mana to aggrieved parties

I hope people don't see this as a malicious rugpull (I didn't trade on this market) and continue to enjoy contributing to Manifold!

@RS That's understandable :-) I appreciated the show of good faith. Thanks!

@RS Thank you for an even-handed answer. NAing sent my balance to -27 after using my loan for the day, so please include me in the settlement.

@RS My limit orders are being wasted and I'm quickly falling through the ranks. I am suing you for at least M100, delivered immediately. I traded on your market according to the exact criteria you outlined and I'm doing worse than if I never touched your market at all. You will force me to take out a loan which I do not want.

To my understanding it must resolve YES, if the UK confirms their decision during this week, as the high level debate week starts on 23rd of september.

I very rarely call for NA because I think it's important to reward people for early good predictions and cashing out on hype spikes.

But in this case I think it might be the least evil. I think you can't resolve YES given the late-stage clarifications, but I think the market is pretty worthless if it resolves NO. The UK clearly timed the announcement to coincide with the high level week. The fact that it didn't technically make the announcement during the week itself is a pretty boring bit of trivia that none of us would care about if we didn't have a stake.

Conflict of interest notice: I would stand to gain a tiny amount from NA.

@Fion If I may make a case against NA, I would not consider

The fact that it didn't technically make the announcement during the week itself

As a boring bit of trivia. Articles about the early intention of the UK to recognize Palestine talked about it happening before the UN high level week, before the other states would do so, which I took to be a PR move to get more attention by intentionally undercutting other countries; articles during the last day also often flipped between "will announce the recognition of Palestine" and "will announce the intention of recognizing Palestine next week, at the UN...", so IMO there had been some internal discussion on which action to take between the two. Part of my betting was also trying to understand which of the two actions UK would take. (But hey, I'd understand the NA given the situation, though I'd obviously be disappointed!)

@Fion they are planning to go through with the vote which was the point of this market since July and did recognize it in September and after the start of the GA which was the original time scale. The only reason for this to resolve NO, assuming they recognize it on Tuesday, is that OP said it would be a NO at the last minute.

@NiccoloVe the reporting from the last 24 hours is also sometimes using the language of before the General Assembly.

I don't think this is a rugpull. I was one of the ones to ask a clarifying question because I thought there was some ambiguity and I've subsequently made quite a lot of mana using the information that the creator provided. It would suck if that mana which I've already locked in was clawed back.

@JoshuaWilkes I agree. My wagers were on "whether Starmer would do it "in front of the UN", ie at the in-person session" as @RS explicitly wrote. Everyone was able to read the comments section in time. This should not NA

As someone not staked on this one, adding "only during high week" or whatever seems like a strange choice.

Id frame it as what it would look like in the future. If in a year someone asked "did the Uk...during last years meeting" you'd say yes because its not a distinction people care much about and the market wasnt originally framed as some "guess the exact day" type deal.

Obviously different if it were when will... and the options were "before sept 22" "sept 22-sept 29th"...etc.

@Yakushi12345

As someone not staked on this one, adding "only during high week"

Please note that the UN general assembly that begun on the 9th is a one-year-long Assembly. Anything that happens in the next year would technically be happening withing the UN general assembly that begun on September. What OP was referring (to the best of my understanding) to is the in-person week where all state heads meet, which is the called the high level week. I don't think this part of the semantics should be particularly controversial.

Colloquially speaking, the meeting is the one starting on Monday, not the one year long Assembly.

@NiccoloVe OP was referring to Keir Stamer’s announcement they would do exactly what they are doing. This market was about whether that announcement/threat would be followed through on for months until the last 2 days. They are still likely recognize Palestine at the vote, doing it within the time period they said and also again within the new time period would make this an ambiguous YES if not for the last minute botching of resolution criteria.

what counts as an official recognition?
does this count: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cpw1qkyke4nt

@someoneR5c8l that's what i thought would make it resolve yes

@realDonaldTrump Update 2025-09-19 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Timeframe narrowed: Resolves YES only if the UK's formal recognition occurs during the UN General Assembly's High-Level Week (General Debate) in September 2025.
I think this happened before the UN general assembly

@MIMIRMAGNVS the general assembly started on the 9th. The market originally seemed to be about whether the UK would end up following through on their threat to recognize Palestine at the UNGA if there wasn’t a change. They are doing so.

However, OP made odd comments implying the timeline is now more restrictive, which would be in the spirit of the market as they are signaling they will recognize Palestine at the vote on Tuesday. But then OP also made comments implying that although the first recognition falls within the general assembly in September AND the market did not specify first recognition AND the UK is likely to recognize Palestine “in front of the UN” at the vote, this somehow may not be sufficient with these last minute criteria. Hence the volatility.

@JasonQ oh, ok ty.

@MIMIRMAGNVS unfortunately markets with botched, difficult to pin down, or suddenly changing resolution criteria tend to drive engagement here to the detriment of the platform.

@RS Doesn't this resolve yes?

My YES bet at 50% in July seems like it will be correct but losing out due to a new technicality added 2 days ago. Never change Manifold.

sold Ṁ163 NO

@JasonQ Every time

bought Ṁ5 YES

@WoahD_ debatable technicality I might add. Motivated reasoning leads to lots of odd semantic fights on here.

Ah, I guess I'll ask another clarification question: if the recognition comes before Monday, as some articles are implying, does that resolve to NO?

@NiccoloVe hmm correct. It would resolve NO. I realise the resolution criteria is ambiguous on that but my intention was for whether Starmer would do it "in front of the UN", ie at the in-person session

@RS Sound like it should now resolve to NO, then? The statement makes it clear that the recognition is formal and happens today, before the UN high level week has started. https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1969751392802750719

sold Ṁ111 YES

@NiccoloVe is the UK not also recognising them in the general assembly?

The title of this market is not "recognises for the first time at the UN General Assembly" .

@StephenFowler28ac Well, @RS has clearly stated that a recognition before the high level week resolves to NO... And I think it makes sense: tomorrow, UK will continue to recognize Palestine, but it started to do so today, not during the high week. There's certainly some semantics around it, which is why I had asked beforehand, and based my betting and previous comment on @RS's reply

Edit: or, another way to put it: if asked "when did UK recognize Palestine?" in the future, historians will reply with today, which is not during the UN high level week debate. That's how I interpreted the market.

@NiccoloVe The question doesn't state "first recognises" it simply says "recognises". If the UK recognises Palestine during the General Assembly it should resolve yes.

Consider the absurdity of applying the OPs position to other markets. "Will it rain on Thursday?" would need to resolve no if it also rained on Tuesday before raining on Thursday.

@StephenFowler28ac I don't think this equivalence holds. Raining is something that sometimes happen, and sometimes don't. A recognition of a state is (almost always) a one time thing. The UK is not going to recognize Palestine every day from now on, because it has already happened today. I think the phrasing that you were thinking of is "will Palestine have been recognized by the UK before the end of the high level week", which is different from this market description. And, again, I had asked for clarification exactly to avoid this issue and the market owner said that they'd resolve to NO in this scenario.

@NiccoloVe I agree the market creators clarification indicates it should resolve no.

However, this clarification isn't in line with the meaning of the title and was only added relatively recently. Recognition can be both the initial act but also an ongoing, continuous state of relations. Both meanings are valid.

Consider the use of the word "recognized" in the wikipedia article, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Palestine

"The state of Palestine is recognized..." in the lead.

"150 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member states have recognized..." in List of States.

I would suggest the market should resolve based on whether the statement "the UK recognises Palestine" is true during the GA. Otherwise the market is essentially just betting on which semantic interpretation the OP will pick.

It should certainly resolve Yes if the UK states explicitly during the GA that they regognise or are recognising Palestine.

filled limit order Ṁ2/Ṁ2 YES at 4%

@StephenFowler28ac

Both meanings are valid [...] Otherwise the market is essentially just betting on which semantic interpretation the OP will pick.

I would argue that OP has already picked a semantic interpretation. If we consider the initial description to have two valid meanings (I'm not convinced, but I'm open to discussion on that) then probably a clarification question should've been asked earlier on. I have been the first to ask it, and OP has clarified which semantic interpretation they intended. I don't think it would be fair to change the interpretation to the other one now. That said, I think I have explained my point of view and I'll now wait for OP to weight in as well.

@NiccoloVe I would not be so sure of that interpretation. If they specifically recognize it during the “high level debate” then they will have recognized it during the period OP’s title and comment referred to. If they recognize it today and then go back on it then that would make sense to resolve NO. If they recognize it today and also then, I don’t see why that wouldn’t count as recognizing it then.

Otherwise we have introduced a bias where either recognizing it between market creation and the resolution period or not recognizing it at all both resolve NO. That changes the probability we were betting on months ago.

Explicitly, you think:

  1. Recognize it before the event and recognize it at the event -> NO

  2. Recognize it before the event but not at the event -> NO

  3. Do not recognize it at the event and also not before -> NO

  4. Do not recognize it before but do so at the event -> YES

I read it as,

  1. Recognize it at the event -> YES

  2. Do not recognize it at the event -> NO

@JasonQ IMO, you cannot recognize a state multiple times. It's an official act which is taken at a certain time and produces diplomatic consequences. If they re-iterate during an UN conference that they have recognized Palestine, it won't have any of the (legal) effects that it had today.

@NiccoloVe the event we are betting on in is a debate in which countries will publicly recognize a Palestinian state or not. Recognition is an ongoing condition and can be withdrawn or may not be asserted in the event in question. This market is regarding that event specifically. It is possible, though unlikely, for the UK to recognize a Palestinian state today and then withdraw that and work out a deal with Israel or the US to not do so during the event in question.

@NiccoloVe notice that this graph went down:

Wanted to ad that the market does not appear to say "begins to recognize" "first recognizes" "announces recognition," or other wording implying recognition as an action rather than a condition. If the UK does recognize Palestine as a state at the September UNGA, similar to how (I presume) the UK will recognize China as a state at the September UNGA, it really appears from the wording that it should resolve yes.

The last thing I’ll add is that OP mentions (now) the market being about if they

would do it "in front of the UN"

and I don’t know that could ever be specifically about the legal paperwork. It seems to me they are getting paperwork done in preparation for recognizing Palestine “in front of the UN” (unless something changes).

@JasonQ oh so if they pre-announce the recognition and then make some sort of public statement/declaration of it at the UNGA that would likely resolve yes but if they announce it entirely unrelated to the UNGA and don't make any sort of public statement at the UNGA that would likely resolve no?

@aaaasterism I think we need to wait for OP. I took it to mean whether they’d recognize it at the UN and there’s also a possible world where they recognize it today and then just fuck off and abstain entirely from the UN meeting. Extremely low probability IMO but within the bounds of reality. IMO that would resolve NO since they didn’t recognize within the bounds of the question.

The schedule is here: https://www.un.org/en/high-level-week-2025

It would make sense to resolve NO if they straight up don’t participate in any debates about Palestine, NO if they participate but don’t recognize a Palestinian state there, and YES if they do recognize Palestine during the debates, ceremonies, etc.

Particularly, I am expecting them to affirm they recognize Palestine here:

But that’s my opinion on what I was betting on months ago, it’s possible OP will go a different way.