this post was submitted on 27 May 2025
106 points (98.2% liked)

politics

24209 readers
2761 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

WASHINGTON – Amid all the scrutiny and skepticism surrounding the Trump administration's plan to address Gaza's humanitarian crisis, one element has seemed particularly perplexing: the use of private military contractors to secure the planned aid.

Two little-known firms, the Safe Reach Solutions (SRS) logistics company and the UG Solutions private security company, will publicly assist the newly established Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) and deliver aid amid increasing global outrage surrounding Israel's failures to alleviate the crisis.

Many details surrounding SRS and UG Solutions remain vague, likely by design. During their previous stint in Gaza from January through the cease-fire's collapse in March, contractors were reportedly armed with M4 rifles, used by the Israeli and U.S. militaries, and Glock pistols. Assuming they will be authorized by Israel to carry weapons in a war zone, the question remains whether Israel is setting the rules or if they are operating on their own terms. This primarily includes their rules of engagement and whether they will be armed.

"We know from countless examples that contractors do not see themselves as bound by the same already-way-too-loose rules of engagement that the militaries operate under," Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy think tank, told Haaretz.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

that's cuz they're contractors most likely and they'll do whatever they have to do and they don't have to listen to anybody's rules that's why they're there unfortunately

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yeah honestly I can get behind this one. UN aid organizations in gaza have a proven history of "misallocating" aid directly into the hands of Hamas (thus reinforcing their hold on power).

If people want a Palestine that is democratic and free, putting food directly into the hands of those who need it is a good first step.

It's unfortunate that food needs to be under armed guard, and it's even more unfortunate that that armed guard is a PMC, but that's the political reality we're in.

America isn't going to send in troops to fight Hamas over scraps of food - and realistically an official US military presence in Gaza would just further inflame tensions. They'll take our money, but they don't want us there.