Former Israeli hostage tells '60 Minutes' Trump is the 'only one' with power to end war in Gaza
Freed Israeli hostage Yarden Bibas made a direct appeal to President Donald Trump to help others still in Hamas captivity in a "60 Minutes" interview on Sunday.
In his first interview since being freed last month, Bibas told host Lesley Stahl he chose an American program so that "the White House would hear his message."
"Please stop this war. Help bring all the hostages back," Bibas pleaded to the president.
"And you think he can help?" Stahl asked.
Israeli Hostage Describes Graphic Sexual Assault, Beatings, Torture In Gaza
"I know he can help," Bibas answered. "I am here because of Trump. I am here only because of him. I think he's the only one who can stop this war again."
Read On The Fox News App
Bibas called on both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to work towards a ceasefire to rescue the remaining hostages. Though Israel recently broke a ceasefire after Hamas refused to release more hostages, Bibas remained optimistic about Trump's chances.
"He has to convince Netanyahu, convince Hamas. Yeah, I think he can do it," Bibas said.
Bibas spent more than 480 days in captivity after Hamas terrorists ripped him, his wife Shiri and two young children, Kfir and Ariel, from their home in Kibbutz Nir Oz. He was one of three hostages released alongside Ofer Kalderon and American-Israeli citizen Keith Siegel.
Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture
Although Bibas returned home, his wife and children were found to have been brutally killed by Hamas terrorists. The remains of the children, aged four and ten months, were returned to Israel weeks after Bibas was released.
Shiri Bibas' remains were initially believed to have been returned with her children. However, it was later discovered that the body in a coffin bearing her name and photo was not Shiri, which led to widespread outrage and condemnation from Israel.
Shiri Bibas' remains were confirmed to have been returned one day later.Original article source: Former Israeli hostage tells '60 Minutes' Trump is the 'only one' with power to end war in Gaza
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - More renters are getting lawyers during evictions, and that's a good thing
Last year, landlords in Los Angeles filed almost 90,000 eviction cases. These cases are hard on tenants: Beyond just the immediate loss of housing, eviction leads to drops in income, higher rates of homelessness, serious health issues, and even increased risk of death. Yet the vast majority of Angelenos who navigate the complex eviction court process do so alone. That is about to change. Last month, Los Angeles joined 18 other cities, two counties, and five states across the nation where most or all tenants are guaranteed a lawyer when they go to court for an eviction. These 'right-to-counsel' programs improve outcomes for individual tenants, but their impact goes further: They can help to coordinate services, change the way the courts operate, and open up new possibilities for tenant organizing. As researchers who study eviction in the U.S., we urge more jurisdictions to push forward housing justice and stability for renters by extending the right to counsel. These programs are particularly important now. Over the last twenty years, rents have gone up much faster than incomes, leaving half of renters cost-burdened. Faced with these sorts of affordability challenges — and given evidence that homelessness is at an all-time high and rising — the federal government should be taking steps to protect renters. Instead, it is making the situation worse. The Trump administration is proposing shrinking the Department of Housing and Urban Development and gutting key benefits such as Housing Choice Vouchers. Right-to-counsel programs provide an example of what state and local governments can do to step into the leadership void created by federal retrenchment. Pop culture has sold us the myth that every defendant has the right to an attorney. But that's not true. Americans aren't necessarily guaranteed a government-funded lawyer when faced with a civil action such as debt collection, a child custody claim, or a landlord-tenant dispute. They're on their own unless they can afford a lawyer, and most people can't. These civil actions are far more common than criminal cases. In any given year, almost half of Americans have to deal with a civil legal case. Take eviction, for example. An average of 7.6 million Americans face eviction cases annually; only 4 percent of these tenants have lawyers to help them through this rapid, complicated, and deeply consequential process. That started changing in 2017, when New York City established the nation's first right to counsel program. Since then, this movement has expanded protections for renters in San Francisco, Baltimore, Detroit, and dozens of other places. Although programs differ in who receives access to a lawyer and when in the process they can get help, the basic idea is the same: to provide tenants with legal assistance during what may be their darkest hour. For tenants who now have lawyers, these programs make a world of difference. Eviction filings are less likely to result in a tenant being removed by court order, and even those that do result in evictions often leave the tenant owing less money. The benefits to health and well-being are also substantial. For example, the availability of right to counsel during pregnancy reduces adverse birth outcomes among newborns. At the end of the day, a lawyer cannot make up for missed rent. But in our work studying how jurisdictions have implemented right-to-counsel, we have seen how the presence of lawyers defending tenants can lead to wholesale culture shifts in civil courts — something that rental assistance and other one-time interventions don't achieve. We have seen courts where, rather than just rubber-stamping landlords' eviction cases, judges now inform tenants of their rights and postpone hearings to make sure that they are represented. Courts can become a place where advocates and social workers connect tenants with services and resources and diversion is a priority. To meet their full potential, state and local leaders need to provide the stable, long-term funding necessary to launch and run these programs right. That means adequate money for outreach and education so that tenants know that protections are available if they show up to court. It also means sufficient funding to ensure that enough lawyers are available, a challenge that the New York City program has faced. San Francisco provides a model of how to do this right, steadily increasing funding, even expanding support during the pandemic when other programs were being cut. Right to counsel programs are bringing change, justice, and hope for renters experiencing one of the most difficult challenges of their lives. As the federal government pulls back supports and reverses longstanding legal protections for low-income renters, it's time for state and local leaders to work together to expand protections like right-to-counsel in a sustainable way that can help as many families as possible avoid the irreversible fallout of eviction and the risk of homelessness. Peter Hepburn is an assistant professor of sociology at Rutgers University-Newark and associate director of Princeton University's Eviction Lab. Emily A. Benfer is a professor of clinical law at the George Washington University Law School and a research collaborator at the Princeton University Eviction Lab. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration threat to end Harvard contracts puts research at risk
May 30 (UPI) -- The Trump administration is seeking to end all contracts it has with Harvard University, a move that adds to the strain between the federal government and America's researchers. The administration announced on Tuesday that it is in the process of reviewing its contracts with Harvard in preparation for their termination. The move may cost the United States a generation of top researchers, Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff in the American Council of Education's government relations department, told UPI. "We're going to lose grad students or post-docs that might have been educated in those federally funded labs," Spreitzer said. "The undergrads are going to lose the opportunity of working alongside those researchers and learning from their work." Harvard has contracts partnering with government departments including NASA, Veterans Affairs, the Office of the Secretary in the Department of Commerce and the Small Business Administration. Dozens of these contracts have been entered into, extended or otherwise updated since President Donald Trump took office. Harvard University did not respond to requests for comment from UPI. One of the largest contracts Harvard holds with the government is a $15 million contract from the Department of Health and Human Services. It is described in the Federal Procurement Data System as a "task order for human organ chip enabled development of radiation countermeasures." It was entered into on July 26. Another of its largest contracts is a $10.6 million contract with the National Institutes of Health for tuberculosis research. Harvard holds more than one contract with the government related to this work. "They want to do more with less," Spreitzer said of the Trump administration. "They're making decisions based on budgetary impacts but that's layered on top of some of the regulatory actions that they are taking, which is really, again, slowing down or completely stalling the scientific process." The Trump administration has cut research funding grants to several universities, many of them Ivy League schools. It has also made cuts to programs in the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among others that offer grant opportunities to universities. Since World War II, the U.S. government has leaned on universities to expand its research capabilities, leading to innovations in health, technology, economics and other disciplines. Spreitzer, who has been an advocate for higher education for 20 years. In that time she said she has interacted with nearly every federal agency, said the partnership has advanced the interests of the government and delivered value to U.S. taxpayers. "Right now we are at this historical inflection point where the federal government is rethinking their partnership with our institutions of higher education," she said. "It's been a very profitable and very important partnership that's helped the entire United States. Whether you're talking about new drugs or medical research or the innovative products that might be spun out and have created jobs." The rethinking of the partnership between the government and universities goes beyond contracts and grants. It is also proposing a lower cap on its reimbursement to universities for indirect costs or facilities and administrative costs. These are overhead expenses that an institution has that are not related to specific projects, such as government-funded research. Prior to the current Trump administration, the National Institutes of Health reimbursed an average of 27% to 28% of direct costs to universities to help cover indirect costs. These rates were negotiated with some institutions being reimbursed at rates more than 50%. There has not been a cap on most reimbursements since Congress removed them in 1965. In February, the National Institutes of Health announced a new policy to cap these reimbursements at 15%. The American Council on Education filed a lawsuit seeking to block the proposed cap, warning that it would greatly disrupt research across the country. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs granted a preliminary injunction against the Department of Energy from instituting a rate cap policy. The injunction succeeds a temporary restraining order Burroughs granted against the administration, shielding all institutions of higher education from rate caps. "It would have a huge impact on our institutions," Spreitzer said. "They've also made huge cuts in some of the fellowship programs. Whether it's the fellowship program for the next generation of NSF scientists or whether it's the Fulbright program -- those have all been suddenly stopped."
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Israel's actions in Gaza are genocide, says Ben & Jerry's
The independent board of Ben & Jerry's has claimed that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza in a move that threatens to further inflame tensions with its parent company Unilever. The ice cream brand, known for its outspoken approach to social issues, said: 'We join with those around the world who denounce the genocide in Gaza. 'We stand with all who raise their voices against genocide in Gaza – from petition-signers to street marchers to those risking arrest.' The independent board made the comments in a statement seen by Reuters. Its description of Israel's actions as genocide comes just weeks after one of the brand's co-founders, Ben Cohen, was arrested in the US Senate for protesting against the provision of military aid to Israel during testimony by Robert F Kennedy Jr, the US health secretary. The statement by the independent board threatens to deepen the disagreement between Ben & Jerry's and Unilever. The two sides have been at odds over Israel and Gaza for many months. The ice cream brand sued Unilever in November 2024, claiming that the company had attempted to block it from making public statements about the conflict. The two companies have clashed over Israel before, including in 2021 when Ben & Jerry's stopped selling its ice cream in the occupied West Bank, arguing that doing business there was 'inconsistent' with its values. In response, Unilever sold its Israeli ice cream business, causing a legal battle that was later resolved. Founded by Cohen and Jerry Greenfield in 1978 in Vermont, Ben & Jerry's has repeatedly spoken out on issues such as refugees' rights, LGBTQ+ issues and climate change. Though it has been owned by Unilever since 2000, an agreement was written into its $326m (£241m) acquisition deal to allow the company to continue operating with an independent board. This effectively protected the company's ability to take a stand on social issues. However, Ben & Jerry's has accused its owner of undermining that deal. In March, the brand accused Unilever of ousting Dave Stever, its chief executive, over his outspoken approach to political and social issues, rather than because of performance. Escalating tensions threaten to overshadow the much-anticipated spin-off of Unilever's ice cream arm into a separate business in an effort to streamline and focus on its core business of consumer goods such as Dove soap and Hellmann's mayonnaise. A Unilever spokesman said: 'We took notice of the comments made by members of the social mission board of Ben & Jerry's. 'Unilever supports efforts for a peaceful resolution and the end of violence to conflicts around the world. Unilever is in litigation with the above mentioned board and will not comment on its positions.' Ben & Jerry's and its founders were approached for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
