RUTHFULLY YOURS

On ABC‘s Sunday program, “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” White House National Security Communications Adviser John Kirby acknowledged sheepishly that Hamas is holding up a deal with Israel that would see the end of the war in Gaza and the release of at least some of the hostages.

The fact that something so obvious requires repeating is beyond outrageous. Nevertheless, it’s made necessary by the choir of voices blaming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu for the absence of an arrangement with Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar and his army of mass murderers.

Asked by Stephanopoulos whether it’s true that the “Gaza ceasefire talks have gone cold,” Kirby replied:

“I would say that we are not achieving any progress here in the last week to two weeks; not for lack of trying. But it doesn’t appear like Mr. Sinwar is prepared at all to keep negotiating in good faith, especially after he murdered six hostages in a tunnel … execution-style. So, it doesn’t appear as if he’s willing to move this forward.”

As they always do when someone in the American administration fingers the real culprit, Israelis on the side of the spectrum that believes in the government’s war goals promptly highlighted this admission. It’s one of the arguments they use to counter claims by the “anybody but Bibi” protesters that Netanyahu is at fault for not playing ball with the so-called “mediators” in Washington, Cairo and Doha.

In their enthusiasm to illustrate, once again, that even U.S. officials are accusing Hamas of being the stumbling block, these pundits failed to focus on the language of Kirby’s interview—and on the rest of its disturbing content.

Let’s start with his referring to this bloodluster, famous for killing Palestinians with his bare hands, as “Mr. Sinwar.” Talk about an ill-deserved honorific, to put it mildly.

Worse, it indicates utter cluelessness about the character of the Middle East, in general, and Sinwar’s identity, in particular. He’s not a “mister.” He’s a monster who revels in being hailed as such. It’s the source of his power over the people he terrorizes, both his own and Israel’s.

Then there’s Kirby’s delicacy in describing how “it doesn’t appear like Mr. Sinwar is prepared at all to keep negotiating in good faith—especially after he murdered six hostages in a tunnel … execution-style.”

When, one wonders, did he ever negotiate “in good faith?” Executing the starved, abused hostages his operatives and “civilian” supporters tortured, raped and kidnapped on Oct. 7 was par for Sinwar. Kirby’s use of the word “especially” constituted an apologetic clarification for the mere suggestion that the Hamas chief might not be as reliable a partner for powwows as the U.S. government had imagined.

Kirby then hurried to reassure Stephanopoulos that the above “doesn’t mean we’re not trying.”

Indeed, he added:

“You heard the president talk about this just a few days ago. Things can be unrealistic until all of sudden they are realistic, and that’s why our team is still engaged with Qatar, with Egypt, with the Israelis, to see if we can’t move it forward.”

Notice Hamas’s glaring absence from the list of parties—you know, the ones negotiating with themselves.

As if Kirby’s statements about Gaza weren’t sufficiently nauseating, he outdid himself when discussing what Stephanopoulos called the “escalation” in Lebanon:

“We believe that there are better ways to try to get those Israeli citizens back in their homes up in the north—and to keep those that are there [safe]—than a war, than an escalation, than opening up a second front there at that border with Lebanon against Hezbollah. We still believe that there can be time and space for a diplomatic solution here and that’s what we’re working on.”

Stephanopoulos wasn’t satisfied with the answer; he wanted to know how it jibed with Netanyahu’s “disregarding what the United States is calling for,” which is a change in the balance of power along Israel’s northern border.

“Well, look, the prime minister can speak for himself and what policies he’s trying to pursue, what operations he’s trying to conduct,” Kirby responded.

“We all, of course, recognize that the tensions are much higher now than they were even just a few days ago. We certainly have been monitoring the reports of strikes back and forth across that border. But all that does … is underscore for us how important it is to try to find a diplomatic solution.

“Nobody’s pollyannish about how hard that’s going to be, certainly in light of the events over the last week or so. But that doesn’t mean we’re going to give up on it. We don’t believe that a military conflict—and we’re saying this directly to our Israeli counterparts—we don’t believe that escalating this military conflict is in their best interest. It’s certainly not going to be in the best interest of all those people [whom] Netanyahu says he wants to be able to send back home.”

Somebody should let Kirby know that “all those people”—as well as the majority of Israelis throughout the country—have been urging Netanyahu to eliminate the threat through serious military action beyond tit-for-tat strikes of attrition.

Stephanopoulos pressed him further. “So, what is the U.S. doing exactly to advance a diplomatic initiative?” he asked.

“We have been involved in extensive and quite assertive diplomacy,” Kirby said proudly, clearly referring to pressure on Israel from the White House and State Department.

“In fact, one of our envoys, Amos Hochstein … was in the region just a few days ago. We will certainly keep up those conversations as best we can. And we’re talking to Mossad, too.”

Mention of Israel’s spy agency provided Stephanopoulos with the perfect segue to his next comment disguised as a query:

“This latest escalation seems to have been sparked by the pager detonations by Israel earlier this week. … Is the United States concerned about what some have said is a relatively indiscriminate response—eh effect—of these pager detonations?”

Calling the most ingenious precision hit on thousands of Hezbollah terrorists simultaneously “indiscriminate” is nothing short of open hostility to Israel, no matter what it does or doesn’t do.

Kirby squirmed.

“There’s not a lot I can say about those incidents … because … we weren’t involved in it,” he said. [But] we are watching all these escalating tensions that have been occurring over the last week or so with great concern. We want to make sure that we can continue to do everything we can to try to prevent this from becoming an all-out war there with Hezbollah there across that Lebanese border. We don’t want—in fact, we’ve been working since the beginning of this conflict, from Oct. 8 and on—to try to prevent an escalation and to prevent a broadening of this conflict, there and in and around Israel, but also in the region.”

He failed to clarify that Hezbollah attacked Israel, unprovoked, a day after Hamas committed the worst atrocities against Jews since the Holocaust. Nor did he bother to remind Stephanopoulos that both are Iranian proxies. He did stress, however, that “we don’t believe military action is in either side’s best interest.”

Here’s a news flash for him and anyone else who hasn’t been facing a seven-front war of annihilation: Diplomacy gets you slaughtered. Military action, which is the only option in this case, should be welcomed—and victory championed—not hampered, by Israel’s professed allies.

Ruthie Blum, former adviser at the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is an award-winning columnist and senior contributing editor at JNS, as well as co-host, with Amb. Mark Regev, of “Israel Undiplomatic” on JNS-TV. She writes and lectures on Israeli politics and culture, and on U.S.-Israel relations. Originally from New York City, she moved to Israel in 1977 and is based in Tel Aviv.