Israel-Gaza war

[strangerinthealps]

All these actions can be and are illegal at the same time, clearly. What's the point of this post?

The use of those facilities for military purposes eliminates their protected status while they are being used as such.

Nope, nope...Hamas would have little use for you as a spokesperson.

 

[strangerinthealps]

Pretty clear at this point that the “Gaza Health Ministry” (Hamas) cannot be trusted.
https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1715029129685270690?s=46&t=o2RmfeV6yYJk0...

Iran still says 5000...

[YPestis25]

This isn't true. The International Community has delegated the West Bank and Gaza Strip to a future Palestinian state. Israel agreed to this in the 1993 Olso Accords. Any West Bank settlement is ILLEGAL under international law. A process that Israel agreed to. The IDF occupation in the West Bank is also illegal, since Israel said they would withdraw all military forces from the West Bank in 5-10 years from when Olso was signed. The blockade of Gaza since 2007 is also illegal even if Hamas is not the internationally recognized government.

Any military action, by any country, that isn't entirely defensive is illegal unless authorized by the UN security council. The exception being to stop genocide.

So all military action by the IDF taken in Gaza is illegal unless its shooting down missiles or bombing strictly missile sites. Bombing hospitals, shelters, schools, declared safety routes, food pantries etc are all war crimes which goes beyond unauthorized miliary action.

I agree with you that Israel shouldn't be creating settlements in West Bank.

You DO realize that Egypt is also an active participant in the blockade of Gaza, right?

Do you also realize that Hamas strategically set up and fire their rockets from civilian homes, school and hospitals and use those spaces for their paramilitary operations?

As you are obviously a scholar of international military law, what is the legality of that?

I'll wait.

All these actions can be and are illegal at the same time, clearly. What's the point of this post?

So you are positing that if an enemy fires rockets at your civilians from the 'protection' of civilian centers, in violation of international law, you cannot return fire against those rockets without violating international law?

You'd make a great Hamas mouthpiece...

As I said, I misread your post and apologized.

If you could not accuse me of being a mouthpiece for a repugnant organization that'd be much obliged, thanks.

[Red Velvet]

Even if the IDF story is true (and I am inclined to think they did not target the hospital "for the lulz" but otherwise i have honestly no idea what happened), the damage done to the West's reputation is becoming incalculable purely because we have swathes of politicians eager to "stand with Israel" while giving a guy like Netenyahu, even reviled in his own country, an endorsement on any story he produces and any potential war crime the IDF commits. This is mana from heaven for Putin and Xi in Muslim countries [all while the regimes of these peoples are dysfunctional messes that cause emigration and none of them bother bringing up the case of the  Uyghurs, which is a systemic slow burn genocide as opposed to a bloody COIN operation] and will fast spread to other theatres.

https://twitter.com/HoansSolo/status/1714535960615039302
Israel has more than enough capacity to deal with this threat, we should have purely focused the PR on humanitarian aid and avoiding civilian deaths, removing terror organsiations, etc. We could always support Israel in a more subtle manner. Instead its become a "Clash of Civilizations" style rhetoric that will cost us dearly.

As someone from the so-called "Global South", there is pretty much nothing that the "West" can do to be popular again here, I witness it (it's declined popularity) daily and I really don't think the "West" should even bother to try and change it. While there are valid reasons for it's declining popularity (at least in the case the Africa), there are also a lot of stupid reasons and in some cases, the West would need to take some unnaceptable positions (such as being anti-LGBT or supporting Russia in its war with Ukraine) to be viewed more positively, so it's pointless.

I’ve been saying this for a looooong while here. But the USA veto over the Brazil UN ceasefire proposal statement with zero arguments and US diplomats pretty much telling us Brazilians that their government doesn’t want a UN solution to the conflict is what consolidated it all in everyone’s minds.

Not the Russian proposal, the Brazilian one that catered to a lot of the American demands in order to find a consensus that all of US to Russia and China could agree to. Almost all the UN Security council voted in favor of the most consensus text that could be established: UK and Russia simply abstained in order to not get in the way. France and China supported it. Only the US was against it.

I was always right and I KNEW I was right but I was aware that there were still some in the Global South who fell for the fake narrative from the West because these complexed mongrels always do. But this now consolidates and exposes to everyone the complete farse that is the “hero” narrative from the West, most specifically the United States of America.

For people who get “Game theory”: Everyone’s dream is of being a hawk while everyone else is a dove because that’s your best gain scenario. Which is the reason the US needs to create these Marvel “pro-democracy and peace” narratives so that everyone can follow this example while they get away with almost everything.

Sabotaging so openly a resolution to this Israel/Gaza conflict pretty much tarnishes this strategy and the result is that everyone else will be much more shameless in trying to be the “hawks” as well. And a world where everyone is an uncontrolled hawk is a world of nuclear war and mass destruction.

Russia will absolutely use this all (already is) as an opportunity to validate themselves in Ukraine, even if their war also contributed a lot to this current no-rules state of affairs.

[Bilardista]

You'd make a great Hamas mouthpiece...

Are you on like a speedrun to become the most annoying user on this forum?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

You'd make a great Hamas mouthpiece...

Are you on like a speedrun to become the most annoying user on this forum?

Has made over 40 posts in the span of a day, all in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Not suspicious at all.

[strangerinthealps]

This isn't true. The International Community has delegated the West Bank and Gaza Strip to a future Palestinian state. Israel agreed to this in the 1993 Olso Accords. Any West Bank settlement is ILLEGAL under international law. A process that Israel agreed to. The IDF occupation in the West Bank is also illegal, since Israel said they would withdraw all military forces from the West Bank in 5-10 years from when Olso was signed. The blockade of Gaza since 2007 is also illegal even if Hamas is not the internationally recognized government.

Any military action, by any country, that isn't entirely defensive is illegal unless authorized by the UN security council. The exception being to stop genocide.

So all military action by the IDF taken in Gaza is illegal unless its shooting down missiles or bombing strictly missile sites. Bombing hospitals, shelters, schools, declared safety routes, food pantries etc are all war crimes which goes beyond unauthorized miliary action.

I agree with you that Israel shouldn't be creating settlements in West Bank.

You DO realize that Egypt is also an active participant in the blockade of Gaza, right?

Do you also realize that Hamas strategically set up and fire their rockets from civilian homes, school and hospitals and use those spaces for their paramilitary operations?

As you are obviously a scholar of international military law, what is the legality of that?

I'll wait.

All these actions can be and are illegal at the same time, clearly. What's the point of this post?

So you are positing that if an enemy fires rockets at your civilians from the 'protection' of civilian centers, in violation of international law, you cannot return fire against those rockets without violating international law?

You'd make a great Hamas mouthpiece...

As I said, I misread your post and apologized.

If you could not accuse me of being a mouthpiece for a repugnant organization that'd be much obliged, thanks.

Hamas never apologize...you're fired!

 

[strangerinthealps]

You'd make a great Hamas mouthpiece...

Are you on like a speedrun to become the most annoying user on this forum?

I'll let the chips fall where they may...

[Pres Mike]

Under normal international law the area would belong to Israel anyway. Conquering Gaza is no more (...also no less, I guess) illegal than establishing settlements in the West Bank.

Right- Egypt and Jordan have dropped all claims to Gaza/WB, and there has never been any internationally recognized sovereign Palestinian state, so surely Israel would be the only country with any rights to the area.

Under normal international law the area would belong to Israel anyway. Conquering Gaza is no more (...also no less, I guess) illegal than establishing settlements in the West Bank.

This isn't true. The International Community has delegated the West Bank and Gaza Strip to a future Palestinian state.

1. The international community cannot do this without the agreement of the country in question here, which is Israel. (I agree that the predominant opinion within the international community is that these areas were never legitimately Israeli to begin with, but that is very much not how decolonization usually works; it respects colonial-era borders. Otherwise Africa -- and for that matter the Middle East -- would be much more splintered than it actually is; consider the nonrecognition of independence movements in Ambazonia/Biafra/Katanga. And Kurdistan.)

Israel agreed to this in the 1993 Olso Accords. Any West Bank settlement is ILLEGAL under international law. A process that Israel agreed to. The IDF occupation in the West Bank is also illegal, since Israel said they would withdraw all military forces from the West Bank in 5-10 years from when Olso was signed.

2. No, Israel agreed to negotiate the creation of a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, but never agreed that it would comprise the entirety of these areas. It only ever agreed to withdraw from Areas A and B (and Gaza), which do not comprise most of the West Bank territorially, and it has never recognized with finality that it does not have a claim to any specific part of the West Bank or Gaza. Israel has never actually agreed to withdraw from Area C (though this has been offered, in 2000 and 2008, in exchange for Palestinian concessions, specifically the permanent disclaiming of any Palestinian right of return or influence over Israeli immigration policy; this was never actually agreed to).

It also did not fully withdraw, as you point out; both sides blame the other for not fulfilling their part of the agreement.

The blockade of Gaza since 2007 is also illegal even if Hamas is not the internationally recognized government.

3. No. Multiple theories have been proposed for why this would be the case, so I don't know which to respond to here, but they are all wrong.

Any military action, by any country, that isn't entirely defensive is illegal unless authorized by the UN security council. The exception being to stop genocide.

4. Nobody has seriously put this forward since the 1950s and this rule has very clearly gone into desuetude; otherwise a literally double-digit number of things done by permanent Security Council members (US/Russia/China/France, at least) would be illegal. (It is also not relevant because, again, Gaza belongs to Israel under normal rules, so suppressing some political entity there which is not recognizing Israeli jurisdiction is defense under normal rules.)

So all military action by the IDF taken in Gaza is illegal unless its shooting down missiles or bombing strictly missile sites. Bombing hospitals, shelters, schools, declared safety routes, food pantries etc are all war crimes which goes beyond unauthorized miliary action.

5. Targeting non-military targets is a war crime. Reoccupying Gaza would not be one, because under normal international law Gaza belongs to Israel. (And even if it didn't, given that its government tried to hold positions in Israeli territory...uh...last weekend, Israel would still be justified in advancing until that government is replaced, though really the issue here is just that the territory's rightful ruler under normal laws is Israel).

As we have already discussed, it is a long-standing policy of Hamas to militarize hospitals and schools (and apparently mosques), and use them as sites for storing or launching weapons. This would, in fact, make them quite valid military targets; that Israel does not do things like destroying hospitals is because its government holds its military to a (substantially) higher standard than normal international law.

First, let me say I appreciate the well thought out and well written post. Let me respond to some points

2. There was no indication that Israel would expand settlements in Area C. The whole point of Area C was to be discussed later, for potential Israeli military concerns (like troops on Jordan border). Not for future settlement. You even have former Israeli prime ministers say that present governments building settlements in Area C (like Netanyahu) was not the intention of the Olso accords and violated the spirt of the treaty and making a future peace harder.

3. No country on Earth can deny food, medicine, water, energy, shelter, treatment etc to another country's citizens. Or their own citizens based on your definition. This is illegal.

4. Countries violating this rule doesn't make it right.

5. While Israel has the right to go into Gaza to take out Hamas (with the unlikely approval from the UN), it still has been targeting civilian targets. Which are war crimes.

Even attacking civilian targets like hospitals that have been militarized is a war crime. You think Hamas is the first to try this? Why is it that other western powers (usually) avoid hitting hospitals and schools?

[Bilardista]

You'd make a great Hamas mouthpiece...

Are you on like a speedrun to become the most annoying user on this forum?

Has made over 40 posts in the span of a day, all in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Not suspicious at all.

Has at least one post dedicated to another subject, and it's against "gender ideology", but yeah, bizarre stuff.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Idk guys, I think this "strangerinthealps" dude might be a Hamas mouthpiece

[strangerinthealps]

Even if the IDF story is true (and I am inclined to think they did not target the hospital "for the lulz" but otherwise i have honestly no idea what happened), the damage done to the West's reputation is becoming incalculable purely because we have swathes of politicians eager to "stand with Israel" while giving a guy like Netenyahu, even reviled in his own country, an endorsement on any story he produces and any potential war crime the IDF commits. This is mana from heaven for Putin and Xi in Muslim countries [all while the regimes of these peoples are dysfunctional messes that cause emigration and none of them bother bringing up the case of the  Uyghurs, which is a systemic slow burn genocide as opposed to a bloody COIN operation] and will fast spread to other theatres.

https://twitter.com/HoansSolo/status/1714535960615039302
Israel has more than enough capacity to deal with this threat, we should have purely focused the PR on humanitarian aid and avoiding civilian deaths, removing terror organsiations, etc. We could always support Israel in a more subtle manner. Instead its become a "Clash of Civilizations" style rhetoric that will cost us dearly.

As someone from the so-called "Global South", there is pretty much nothing that the "West" can do to be popular again here, I witness it (it's declined popularity) daily and I really don't think the "West" should even bother to try and change it. While there are valid reasons for it's declining popularity (at least in the case the Africa), there are also a lot of stupid reasons and in some cases, the West would need to take some unnaceptable positions (such as being anti-LGBT or supporting Russia in its war with Ukraine) to be viewed more positively, so it's pointless.

I’ve been saying this for a looooong while here. But the USA veto over the Brazil UN ceasefire proposal statement with zero arguments and US diplomats pretty much telling us Brazilians that their government doesn’t want a UN solution to the conflict is what consolidated it all in everyone’s minds.

Not the Russian proposal, the Brazilian one that catered to a lot of the American demands in order to find a consensus that all of US to Russia and China could agree to. Almost all the UN Security council voted in favor of the most consensus text that could be established: UK and Russia simply abstained in order to not get in the way. France and China supported it. Only the US was against it.

I was always right and I KNEW I was right but I was aware that there were still some in the Global South who fell for the fake narrative from the West because these complexed mongrels always do. But this now consolidates and exposes to everyone the complete farse that is the “hero” narrative from the West, most specifically the United States of America.

For people who get “Game theory”: Everyone’s dream is of being a hawk while everyone else is a dove because that’s your best gain scenario. Which is the reason the US needs to create these Marvel “pro-democracy and peace” narratives so that everyone can follow this example while they get away with almost everything.

Sabotaging so openly a resolution to this Israel/Gaza conflict pretty much tarnishes this strategy and the result is that everyone else will be much more shameless in trying to be the “hawks” as well. And a world where everyone is an uncontrolled hawk is a world of nuclear war and mass destruction.

Russia will absolutely use this all (already is) as an opportunity to validate themselves in Ukraine, even if their war also contributed a lot to this current no-rules state of affairs.

If they wanted it to pass, they should have made mention of Israel's inherent right to self- defense...

Also, game theory and Marvel? That didn't help your argument.

Relax, the UN are toothless anyway. What good have they done the women of Afghanistan since the Taleban takeover?

[strangerinthealps]

You'd make a great Hamas mouthpiece...

Are you on like a speedrun to become the most annoying user on this forum?

Has made over 40 posts in the span of a day, all in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Not suspicious at all.

It's what I signed on here to argue about, after my football forum banned political arguments during the season.

I'm also against medicalizing children who believe they are trans, if that helps...

[Zinneke]

Even if the IDF story is true (and I am inclined to think they did not target the hospital "for the lulz" but otherwise i have honestly no idea what happened), the damage done to the West's reputation is becoming incalculable purely because we have swathes of politicians eager to "stand with Israel" while giving a guy like Netenyahu, even reviled in his own country, an endorsement on any story he produces and any potential war crime the IDF commits. This is mana from heaven for Putin and Xi in Muslim countries [all while the regimes of these peoples are dysfunctional messes that cause emigration and none of them bother bringing up the case of the  Uyghurs, which is a systemic slow burn genocide as opposed to a bloody COIN operation] and will fast spread to other theatres.

https://twitter.com/HoansSolo/status/1714535960615039302

Israel has more than enough capacity to deal with this threat, we should have purely focused the PR on humanitarian aid and avoiding civilian deaths, removing terror organsiations, etc. We could always support Israel in a more subtle manner. Instead its become a "Clash of Civilizations" style rhetoric that will cost us dearly.

As someone from the so-called "Global South", there is pretty much nothing that the "West" can do to be popular again here, I witness it (it's declined popularity) daily and I really don't think the "West" should even bother to try and change it. While there are valid reasons for it's declining popularity (at least in the case the Africa), there are also a lot of stupid reasons and in some cases, the West would need to take some unnaceptable positions (such as being anti-LGBT or supporting Russia in its war with Ukraine) to be viewed more positively, so it's pointless.

The article refers to the Global South's political establishment more than popular opinion, I think, but I understand where you're coming from. I still think EU officials should have refused to meet Netenyahu and instead meet with the President of Israel to pay tribute. Small things like that matter.

[strangerinthealps]

5. While Israel has the right to go into Gaza to take out Hamas (with the unlikely approval from the UN), it still has been targeting civilian targets. Which are war crimes.

Aren't they all technically civilians?

Outside of a photo op, the only uniform they ever wear is a pilfered Israeli one.

Maybe we can identify them by their standard issue body armor...a woman in a hijab.

[strangerinthealps]

You'd make a great Hamas mouthpiece...

Are you on like a speedrun to become the most annoying user on this forum?

Has made over 40 posts in the span of a day, all in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Not suspicious at all.

Has at least one post dedicated to another subject, and it's against "gender ideology", but yeah, bizarre stuff.

Truly bizarre...much like cyber-stalking some rando on a political forum.

[ProudModerate2]

Horrible.
I refuse to read how these hostages were killed, and in what condition their bodies were in, when they were returned to their family for burial.
Maddening.

[Vosem]

First, let me say I appreciate the well thought out and well written post.

Thank you.

Let me respond to some points

2. There was no indication that Israel would expand settlements in Area C. The whole point of Area C was to be discussed later, for potential Israeli military concerns (like troops on Jordan border). Not for future settlement. You even have former Israeli prime ministers say that present governments building settlements in Area C (like Netanyahu) was not the intention of the Olso accords and violated the spirt of the treaty and making a future peace harder.

I think I agree that the settlements go against the spirit of the agreement, and that the Israeli politicians who negotiated it did not expect the backlash that occurred in the 1996 election. That said, I don't think there ever was an Israeli government which would agree to give up more than Barak did in 2000 (the 1999 election "put it back on track", on some level), but this agreement was still refused (as was a version of it in 2008). Since 2000 I think the idea of a negotiated peace has been basically dead; Sharon's political platform was establishing a separate Palestinian state by force, but this resulted in Hamas's takeover of Gaza in 2007 and is now also a dead letter. Not much is left besides the Netanyahu strategy of kicking the can down the road, or learning to live with the status quo.

(But I don't think the settlements are illegal, although, yes, most countries do think this. I think this judges the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by a standard foreign to the most obviously similar comparisons.)

3. No country on Earth can deny food, medicine, water, energy, shelter, treatment etc to another country's citizens. Or their own citizens based on your definition. This is illegal.

This is not the case; no country has a responsibility under international law to allow in refugee flows. Perhaps there is a moral law that mandates this, but there is no clause of international law. (No one is disputing that Egypt and Jordan are well within their rights to refuse entry to individuals fleeing Gaza). Food, medicine, water, energy, shelter, and medical treatment were all available in Gaza before the current more intensive period of conflict started; there were not people starving (...as in Venezuela, for instance -- which nevertheless remains under quite legal US sanctions), and the reason we can have controversies about who, if anybody, bombed a hospital is because functioning hospitals exist within Gaza.

In general, countries are well within their rights to sanction other countries (...and superpowers like the US exercise this right routinely), or to blockade rebellious areas; most of the other examples of this are from much poorer places than Gaza, much less Israel -- it took place in Yemen and takes place in African conflicts -- but that mostly goes to show how unusual a conflict like this is in a relatively wealthy part of the world.

4. Countries violating this rule doesn't make it right.

It makes it not a valid rule.

5. While Israel has the right to go into Gaza to take out Hamas (with the unlikely approval from the UN), it still has been targeting civilian targets. Which are war crimes.

Even attacking civilian targets like hospitals that have been militarized is a war crime.

It legitimately is not; the third part of this expressly notes that where there is not doubt, "places of worship...houses...other dwellings...schools" all can be valid military targets. There is no standard for what is meant by 'doubt'.

'Disproportionate force' against such targets is banned, but...like...only a military expert can actually determine what force would be 'disproportionate' (and really for 'doubt' ultimately it comes down to a good-faith effort on the part of the intelligence agencies of the attacking government).

You think Hamas is the first to try this? Why is it that other western powers (usually) avoid hitting hospitals and schools?

Because it makes for bad press under the modern journalistic environment. This is very unfortunate because it incentivizes groups like Hamas (...or, in 2014, various Donbass paramilitaries) to militarize hospitals and schools and behave in ways that maximize civilian casualties. The solution must be to change the modern journalistic environment, so that they will not reflexively treat an organization more sympathetically if its enemies bomb hospitals and schools.

[strangerinthealps]

Because it makes for bad press under the modern journalistic environment. This is very unfortunate because it incentivizes groups like Hamas (...or, in 2014, various Donbass paramilitaries) to militarize hospitals and schools and behave in ways that maximize civilian casualties. The solution must be to change the modern journalistic environment, so that they will not reflexively treat an organization more sympathetically if its enemies bomb hospitals and schools.

For what its worth, we bombed a **** ton of schools in Afghanistan.

The Taleban had taken over pretty much every girls' school in the country and were using them as bases.

Luckily, no female students were allowed at that time, so there were no civilian casualties to speak of...

We also rebuilt them all afterwards...

[afleitch]

You'd make a great Hamas mouthpiece...

Are you on like a speedrun to become the most annoying user on this forum?

Has made over 40 posts in the span of a day, all in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Not suspicious at all.

It's what I signed on here to argue about, after my football forum banned political arguments during the season.

I'm also against medicalizing children who believe they are trans, if that helps...

Hi.

Moderator here. This is a place for discussion over argument. Please also be mindful of the tone. I won't moderate pays like these right now.

Because it makes for bad press under the modern journalistic environment. This is very unfortunate because it incentivizes groups like Hamas (...or, in 2014, various Donbass paramilitaries) to militarize hospitals and schools and behave in ways that maximize civilian casualties. The solution must be to change the modern journalistic environment, so that they will not reflexively treat an organization more sympathetically if its enemies bomb hospitals and schools.

For what its worth, we bombed a **** ton of schools in Afghanistan.

The Taleban had taken over pretty much every girls' school in the country and were using them as bases.

Luckily, no female students were allowed at that time, so there were no civilian casualties to speak of...

We also rebuilt them all afterwards...

But I may.

[strangerinthealps]

You'd make a great Hamas mouthpiece...

Are you on like a speedrun to become the most annoying user on this forum?

Has made over 40 posts in the span of a day, all in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Not suspicious at all.

It's what I signed on here to argue about, after my football forum banned political arguments during the season.

I'm also against medicalizing children who believe they are trans, if that helps...

Hi.

Moderator here. This is a place for discussion over argument. Please also be mindful of the tone. I won't moderate pays like these right now.

Because it makes for bad press under the modern journalistic environment. This is very unfortunate because it incentivizes groups like Hamas (...or, in 2014, various Donbass paramilitaries) to militarize hospitals and schools and behave in ways that maximize civilian casualties. The solution must be to change the modern journalistic environment, so that they will not reflexively treat an organization more sympathetically if its enemies bomb hospitals and schools.

For what its worth, we bombed a **** ton of schools in Afghanistan.

The Taleban had taken over pretty much every girls' school in the country and were using them as bases.

Luckily, no female students were allowed at that time, so there were no civilian casualties to speak of...

We also rebuilt them all afterwards...

But I may.

Potato, potato...but point taken.

For the purpose of clarity, where exactly might I have given offense?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

https://twitter.com/Yesh_Din/status/1714594176292037066?t=tvnLCl3gpSqVJwdyS8qDPg...
Escalation of settler violence in the West Bank.

[strangerinthealps]

https://twitter.com/Yesh_Din/status/1714594176292037066?t=tvnLCl3gpSqVJwdyS8qDPg...
Escalation of settler violence in the West Bank.

Yeah, they need to get a handle on that...

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://twitter.com/Yesh_Din/status/1714594176292037066?t=tvnLCl3gpSqVJwdyS8qDPg...
Escalation of settler violence in the West Bank.

Yeah, they need to get a handle on that...

Unfortunately, they won't.

[Stuart98]

https://twitter.com/Yesh_Din/status/1714594176292037066?t=tvnLCl3gpSqVJwdyS8qDPg...
Escalation of settler violence in the West Bank.

Yeah, they need to get a handle on that...

That's putting it lightly. This isn't a problem the government would like to get on top of but isn't, they literally do not care about it.