Instead, I get a whole bunch of them
First, the OP describes a conversation between Gallant and Austin. There is no Netanyahu in this picture. Besides, gallant is Netanyahu's nemesis. You absolutely didn't have to refer to netanyahu in this context: it wouldn't have been entirely out of place. So was the mention of warmongering that you associate with Netanyahu.
Second, Gallant did the opposite of intimating warmongering. From the OP: ""The possibility for an agreed framework in the northern arena is running out," Gallant told Austin in a phone call, according to a statement from his office." Clearly, this is a literal expression of concern that time to come to an agreement in order to avoid military escalation is running out. It takes a lot of imagination to see any hint of anyone itching for a confrontation in the entire post.
Third, Hamas is not even the subject of the conversation between Gallant and Austin. It is Hezbollah they are talking about. So no, you don't have to say anything about hamas when the conversation is not about Hamas. That is self-evident.
You absolutely do, however, have to acknowledge Hezbollah continuous attacks on Israeli civilians, causing deaths and injuries to Israeli children and adults, and the 100,000 Israelis displaced by their warmongering when the subject of the thread is Hezbollah's warmongering. That is self-evident too.
Please, you know this as well as I do, lest you create an impression of being entirely partial and disingenuous.