Trump Believes Israeli Hostages Are Treated Like Jews Were Treated by Nazis 'In the Movies'
Trump's remarks came after two Israel-based human rights organizations condemned the country's assault in Gaza as a genocide. The groups published reports citing Israel's bombardment of hospitals, a blockade preventing medical and food aid from entering the Gaza Strip and what one group called "coordinated action to intentionally destroy Palestinian society."
While addressing reporters in Scotland, Trump insisted that the U.S. is "giving a lot of money and a lot of food" to aid the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. But he later turned the conversation toward the hostages taken by Hamas on October 7, 2023, seemingly comparing their treatment to the Nazis and Germans in WWII.
The president said he questioned if Hamas soldiers ever "winked at" hostages and gave them reassurance they would be OK, or if they ever gave the hostages "some extra food" while being held in Gaza.
"You see it in the movies where somebody's a prisoner and somebody's helping. You even see it with Germany where people would be let into a house and live in an attic in secret," Trump said.
Trump's comparisons came under fire online for seemingly comparing the situation to the story of Anne Frank, a Jewish child who hid in an attic in Amsterdam with her family in an attempt to avoid being captured by the Nazis.
Others drew comparisons to the film "The Pianist," which shares the story of a Jewish man who was able to escape being sent to the Treblinka concentration camp thanks to the help of a police friend.
"Foreign policy insights from the movies. Perfect," one user wrote. Another added, "That's not how it worked."
"Are there any attics left in Gaza???" one user inquired, referring to the statistic that an estimated 70% of all buildings in Gaza have been destroyed.
Trump previously faced backlash for suggesting that Nazis showed Jews "signs of love" during the Holocaust after meeting with freed Israeli hostages in April. Several users slammed Trump's statements seemingly intended to frame Hamas militants as more cruel than Nazis as "a grotesque distortion of history" at the time.
Originally published on Latin Times
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Business Times
15 minutes ago
- Int'l Business Times
Brazil Vows To Fight Trump Tariff 'Injustice'
Brazil vowed Thursday to combat US President Donald Trump's tariffs on its exports, saying it intends to lodge appeals if last-ditch negotiations fail. Finance Minister Fernando Haddad said the tariffs announced Wednesday were "more favorable" than expected, with several key export products exempted. Still, there "is a lot of injustice in the measures announced yesterday. Corrections need to be made," he told reporters. Citing a "witch hunt" against his far-right ally Jair Bolsonaro -- Brazil's former president on trial for allegedly plotting a coup -- Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order adding a 40 percent tariff on Brazilian products, bringing total trade duties to 50 percent. The levies affect coffee and meat, two products of which Brazil is the world's top exporter. The order, which takes effect on August 6, listed exemptions for nearly 700 other products including key exports such as planes, orange juice and pulp, Brazil nuts, and some iron, steel and aluminum products. Leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva -- the man Bolsonaro is accused of having sought to topple -- has denounced the tariffs as an attack on the "sovereignty" of South America's largest economy. "The negotiation is not over; it starts today," Vice President Geraldo Alckmin, tapped to oversee talks with Washington, told TV Globo. Alckmin said the new tariff will apply to nearly 36 percent of Brazil's exports to the United States, equal to some $14.5 billion last year. Haddad said he would speak with his American counterpart, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and "there will be a cycle of negotiations." He did not give a date. "We are starting from a point that is more favorable than one could have imagined, but still far from the finish line," the minister said. If negotiations fail, Haddad said Brasilia would "file appeals with the appropriate authorities, both in the United States and with international bodies." Trump's Brazil tariff is among the highest imposed on US trading partners. Unlike with other countries, the measures against Brazil have been framed in openly political terms, sweeping aside centuries-old trade ties and a surplus that Brasilia put at $284 million last year. "These are harsh measures that will have a real impact on important sectors of the Brazilian economy," Reginaldo Nogueira, an economist with Brazil's IBMEC business school, told AFP. "The exemptions help mitigate some of the pressure on Brazil but primarily protect strategic goods for the American economy," he added. Haddad said the Brazilian government would put in place protection measures for the most affected companies, and noted that "nothing that was decided yesterday cannot be reviewed." Trump's order was based on the Brazilian government's "politically motivated persecution, intimidation, harassment, censorship, and prosecution of (Bolsonaro) and thousands of his supporters," according to the White House. It also cited Brazil's "unusual and extraordinary policies and actions harming US companies, the free speech rights of US persons, US foreign policy, and the US economy," singling out Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes. Moraes is the judge presiding over Bolsonaro's coup trial and has clashed repeatedly with the far-right in Brazil, as well as with tech titan Elon Musk, over the spread of online misinformation. The US Treasury announced financial sanctions on Moraes Wednesday, saying he had "taken it upon himself to be judge and jury in an unlawful witch hunt against US and Brazilian citizens and companies." A Supreme Court source told AFP that Moraes "does not have assets in the United States" where the sanctions would have frozen them.
DW
6 hours ago
- DW
What's behind UK foreign policy change on Palestinian state? – DW – 07/31/2025
British PM Keir Starmer has said unless Israel takes significant steps toward peace, the UK will recognize a Palestinian state. He's using the "inalienable right of the Palestinian people" as a diplomatic tool. The new direction for the UK's foreign policy regarding the Middle East came shortly after British Prime Minister Keir Starmer met with US President Donald Trump in Scotland. Just a day later, on July 29, Starmer interrupted his cabinet ministers' summer break for an emergency meeting, after which the policy turnaround was presented in London. In a statement, Starmer, the leader of the center-left Labour Party, said the UK could recognize Palestine as a state as soon as September unless Israel's government moved toward meeting certain conditions, including a ceasefire, not annexing the occupied West Bank and committing to a long-term peace process. Britain believes "statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people," Starmer said. His government is using the recognition of a Palestinian state as a means of political pressure to push forward the so-called two-state solution. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Until now, the UK has delayed its recognition of a Palestinian state in part because of the country's own historical responsibility. Between 1920 and 1948, Britain was the administrative power in Palestine, which had previously been part of the Ottoman Empire. In 1917, the British government issued a statement — the Balfour Declaration, named after then-British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour — that said it supported the idea of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. The declaration was made without considering the rights of the Arab majority population there and the move went on to spark violence between local Arabs, immigrant Jews and the British administration. Two years after David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel, announced the establishment of the State of Israel, Britain recognized the country. But when it came to recognizing Palestine as a state, the UK regularly said that this had to be part of a peace deal. This was also strategic: Britain didn't want to jeopardize its relationships with the US or Israel. But this historical position has come under ever more pressure. The ongoing conflict in Gaza — fighting there began in October 2023 after an attack on Israel by the Gaza-based militant group Hamas, that resulted in the deaths of around 1,200 people and the kidnapping of 251 — has sowed serious internal divisions in the UK. In cities like London, Manchester and Glasgow, protesters regularly take to the streets in huge demonstrations calling for an end to the current conflict and Israeli occupation. These popular protests are supported by many local trade unions as well as left-leaning political organizations, such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and the Stop the War group (the latter also opposes Europeans fighting in Ukraine). Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has also called for an end to weapons deliveries to Israel. In late July, Corbyn announced he was starting his own political party "to take on the rich and powerful." Corbyn was suspended from the Labour Party in 2020 after he said a report into antisemitism inside the party under his leadership had been exaggerated for "political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media." According to a YouGov survey undertaken on 24-25 July, around two-thirds of Labour supporters agree with the UK government's decision to recognize Palestine. Of the general public, the YouGov poll found that 45% think it's a good idea. In the British Parliament, 221 members have signed a letter calling for recognition of Palestine. Among the signatories were many Labour Party members. Ministers in Starmer's cabinet have also pushed in this direction. Starmer appears to have given in to the pressure, at least partially. But he reiterated the UK's support for Israel and demands on Hamas in the government statement on Tuesday. "We have been unequivocal in our condemnation of those evil attacks, and our support for the right of the State of Israel to self-defence. Hamas must immediately release all the hostages, sign up to an immediate ceasefire [...] and commit to disarmament." At the same time though, he was critical of the Israeli government's military offensive and its policies in Gaza. "Now, in Gaza, because of a catastrophic failure of aid, we see starving babies, children too weak to stand, images that will stay with us for a lifetime. The suffering must end," he told journalists. While the United Nations and leading aid agencies have repeatedly warned of the increasing risk of starvation in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted there is no hunger in the enclave. The most recent figures from the health authorities in Gaza indicate that more than 60,000 people have died in Gaza as a result of the Israeli military offensive. Almost half of the dead were women and children. The Gaza health authorities are controlled by Hamas, which administers the enclave. However, the death toll is considered broadly reliable, including by the Israeli military, which has used the numbers in its own briefings. Israel has denied international journalists entry into Gaza since the beginning of Israel's siege, meaning DW has not been able to independently verify the death toll. A number of recent studies however, suggest it may actually be an undercount. Starmer's decision to recognize Palestine may also be a reaction to the fact that France plans to do the same during the UN General Assembly in early September. As French President Emmanuel Macron explained in Paris late last week, France wants to revitalize a peace process there and put international weight behind a two-state solution. Unlike Macron, though, Starmer is only holding out the threat of recognition if Israel fails to move toward a ceasefire. Observers have argued that it's more of a balancing act for the UK, something between taking a moral stand and taking careful account of foreign relations with the US. Trump said he and Starmer had not, in fact, discussed a Palestinian state while in Scotland. Reacting to Starmer's announcement on Tuesday, Trump said, "I'm not going to take a position, I don't mind him taking a position." But later on, during his flight back to the US, Trump told reporters that Starmer was "rewarding Hamas." Israel's Netanyahu has described Starmer's plan as "appeasement towards jihadist terrorists." Currently, 147 out of 193 UN member states recognize Palestine as a state. However, what counts as a state is still disputed with different methods and prerequisites used to identify countries. Even so, several of the conditions usually accepted as necessary for a functioning state are presently not in place for Palestine. That includes a unified government, control over borders and security and clearly defined territory. In the statement announcing his government's change of course, Starmer emphasized that the Hamas group must "accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza" in the view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
DW
7 hours ago
- DW
Trump's EPA to roll back cornerstone of climate action – DW – 07/31/2025
The US Environmental Protection Agency under President Donald Trump is pushing to reverse a 2009 landmark declaration that deemed CO2 and other greenhouse gases harmful to people's health. What's at stake? US President Donald Trump's administration is forging ahead with a plan to revoke a scientific finding that's long been the cornerstone of US climate action. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin unveiled the move at a car dealership in the US state of Indiana, hailing it as "the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States" and the "death of the Green New Scam." At the heart of the rollback is the Obama-era 2009 endangerment finding, grounded in the landmark Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA. That ruling established the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants — a legal foundation for US efforts to curb emissions. If the endangerment finding is thrown out, the EPA would lose its ability to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, a move experts warn would represent a "radical pivot in American climate and energy policy." "It represents a complete US step away from renewable energy and energy efficiency in favor of full embrace of expanded production and use of fossil fuels, including coal, oil, and natural gas," Barry Rabe, environmental and public policy professor at the University of Michigan, told DW. The second Trump administration is acting more aggressively in just about everything than the first, Michael Gerrard, professor at Columbia Law School, told DW. It is closely following the blueprint of Project 2025, a roadmap developed by conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation. The 900-page document suggested an "update" of the endangerment finding. The finding is the basis for rules regulating climate pollution established under the Obama and Biden administrations. Rules on power plants, vehicles, airplanes, and landfills could now be repealed, said Jason Rylander, legal director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. At the same time, climate change continues to intensify across the US, fueling extreme heat, wildfires, floods, and billion-dollar weather disasters. "Climate change isn't going away. We are rapidly accelerating past 1.5 degrees. There will be additional public health and environmental harms that will result from that," Rylander said. The EPA has formally drawn up a proposal, which is now open for public comment until September. The agency will then review and respond to the feedback before issuing a final ruling, expected by the end of the year. There will then likely be lawsuits. "Groups like mine will certainly sue," Rylander said. The cases will first go to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and could then be appealed to the US Supreme Court. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video It could take years for the case to reach the Supreme Court. But once the EPA issues its final decision, the endangerment finding will be revoked, Gerrard explained. "It stays revoked unless a court overturns it." The endangerment finding is based on decades of scientific conclusions from credible global sources about the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change and public health. Rylander said the EPA was "slicing and dicing the statute to try to come up with some sort of loopholes," and that none of the arguments brought forward "really passed the laugh test." Still, with a six-to-three conservative majority, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly chipped away at federal climate regulations in recent years. "So, it is possible that the Supreme Court will uphold this," said Gerrard, who is also director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video One argument the agency is using to reverse the finding is that its economic and political significance is so great that it requires explicit authorization from Congress. And while the EPA under Obama and Biden assumed it was enough to show that greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans endanger the climate, the Trump administration wants to evaluate each gas individually and by sector. "And they are saying each chunk, like carbon dioxide from US power plants alone, has to endanger the climate," Gerrard said, adding that this is much harder to establish. "So, a court that is hostile to climate regulation might follow that approach and agree with the Trump EPA and say that the endangerment finding is not valid." The EPA proposal also argues the 2009 finding failed to consider the benefits of CO2 emissions alongside their costs. Rylander called this "a fallacious argument," comparing it to deciding whether a species is endangered under the Endangered Species Act. "That's not an economic decision. It's a question of science," he said, adding that it's the same with pollutants, like CO2. "Do they cause public health harm or do they not?" Rabe said a reversal would cause "a chilling effect on many existing federal policies for greenhouse gas emissions." Still, the EPA would retain authority to regulate other pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, mercury, and coal ash from coal-fired power plants. "And many states are working to address pollution from cars and power plants, and they would do that under state law," said Rylander, adding that "US efforts to decarbonize will still continue." However, Gerrard said, "the best tool they have would be gone."
