WhatsappMessage to Trump’s Mideast envoy: Stop using terminology that encourages Israel’s enemies to stick to their literal and figurative guns.
(July 27, 2025 / JNS)
After weeks of fruitless “negotiations” in Qatar, U.S. Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff announced on Thursday that the United States was recalling its delegation.
“We have decided to bring our team home from Doha for consultations after the latest response from Hamas, which clearly shows a lack of desire to reach a ceasefire in Gaza,” Witkoff declared.
“While the mediators have made a great effort, Hamas does not appear to be coordinated or acting in good faith,” he explained. “We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza.”
Finally, he said, “It is a shame that Hamas has acted in this selfish way. We are resolute in seeking an end to this conflict and a permanent peace in Gaza.”
With statements like these, is it any wonder that the terrorists who committed the Oct. 7 massacre and those living in luxury under the auspices in the high-end hotels of the so-called “mediators” keep upping the ante during deliberations with America and Israel?
It’s bad enough that lies about Israel’s purposeful starvation of and genocide against the Gazan population are being bought and then sold by international and Israeli actors. This piece of malicious mendacity, among many others, spurred French President Emmanuel Macron to recognize a Palestinian state.
More importantly, the global cacophony is responsible for the hardening of Hamas’s bargaining position. Anyone who doesn’t grasp that this is preventing the release of the remaining 20 live Israelis being brutalized by their captors in Gaza—as well as an additional 30 dead bodies—is either delusional or ill-intentioned.
Witkoff, of all people, ought to and probably does understand this by now. What he can’t seem to get into his head, however, is that viewing the Middle East through Western eyes is not merely misguided or self-defeating; it’s dangerous.
Evidence that he’s unable to shake the real-estate-deal mindset lies in his rhetoric. His latest remarks on the failure of the Doha talks are illustrative, hopefully of naiveté and not willful blindness.
Let’s start with his first sentence about Hamas’s response to the most recent Israeli capitulation to its demands. The group’s rejection, he noted, “clearly shows a lack of desire to reach a ceasefire in Gaza.”
This was news to him?
Hamas makes no bones about not having relinquished its three-pronged goal: a full withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces from the Strip, freedom to rebuild its terror network and the release of hundreds of Palestinian murderers from Israeli prisons.
Talking about the ongoing travesty as a lightbulb moment—a sudden realization that Hamas doesn’t actually want to “reach a ceasefire”—indicates that Witkoff was under the opposite impression. But then, he opened his next comment with a mention of the “great effort” by the mediators. You know, the Qataris and Egyptians.
The former house Hamas leaders. The latter’s border with Gaza is porous where weapons smuggling is concerned, but sealed almost hermetically to Gazans desperate to escape their plight. The one brought on them by Hamas, that is.
Yes, he added, despite the mediators’ hard work, “Hamas does not appear to be coordinated or acting in good faith.”
Really?
Did he mean that the death-cult jihadis basking in Qatari opulence don’t “appear to be coordinated” with their brethren in Gaza who’re holding the hostages as trophies and leverage? Or was he suggesting that this is one of two possibilities, the other being that Hamas isn’t “acting in good faith”?
Good faith. How he was able to utter such a benign phrase in the same breath as a terrorist organization that uses its own people as human shields while stealing their food is beyond comprehension—certainly in the Middle East, where the concept has a very different connotation.
His final jaw-dropper—“We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home”—began with what promised to unfold as a veiled threat; or at least a warning. Instead, it morphed into typical diplo-speak about “try[ing] to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza.”
