Editor’s Note: Freddie Reidy is a London-based freelance writer. He studied history and art history at the University of Kent, Canterbury, majoring in Russian history and international politics. The article reflects the views of the author and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

For many observers, Biden’s call for a ceasefire came too late and doesn’t go far enough. What are the motivations for such a conservative policy?

Violence erupted on April 15 amid mounting tensions in Jerusalem that led to unrest at a holy place important to Muslims and Jews.
After warnings from the Palestinians demanding an Israeli withdrawal were not heeded, Hamas began its aerial bombardment, which was reciprocal, in a conflict that is believed to have claimed the lives of more than 200 people.

Despite this, US President Joe Biden only called for a ceasefire on Monday in a call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki reported that “the President has expressed support for a ceasefire and discussed the United States’ engagement with Egypt and other partners to this end ”.

The rise in language comes amid growing international concern over a third US veto at the UN, where a Security Council statement condemning violence and calling for an immediate ceasefire was blocked.

US presidents, especially Democratic presidents, have long defended Israel’s right to protection from rocket attacks.
In fact, the intensity of the Palestinian roadblock surprised many of Israel. Hamas fired some 3,150 rockets at Israel, while Israel responded with 1,500 airstrikes.

Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system intercepted 90 percent of rockets fired from Gaza, but this is a lower than expected success rate, helping to galvanize Netanyahu’s resolve to neutralize the threat. It may also have led the White House to tolerate a prolonged campaign before the intervention.
This latest skirmish is part of a larger pattern of behavior where the United States has recognized Israel’s right to neutralize threats before finally calling for a cessation of hostilities.

To that end, former US Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross told the Financial Times that Washington’s change of tone indicates that the moment has now come and that the White House is basically saying, “OK, you’ve got it. does what you needed. Now it’s time to find a way out. “

Biden’s call on Monday followed typically harsh rhetoric from his Israeli counterpart, who vowed to “do whatever it takes” to “degrade” Hamas.

While some may have viewed the White House’s shift in message as a point of divergence, it is entirely possible that the two are acting in concert. Biden expressing the importance for peace after Netanyahu presented the alternative.

Biden has also struggled with a more diverse Democratic Party, which has demanded a tougher line on Israel. The call for a ceasefire was arguably the president’s smallest concession.

Among those lobbying, senior Democrats, including Bob Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had earlier said he was “deeply troubled” by the Israeli retaliation while the committee member, Joaquin Castro, expressed serious skepticism by signing a defense contract with Israel. $ 735 million. Castro expressed “serious concerns about the timing of this arms sale, the message it will send to Israel and the world on the urgency of a ceasefire.”

Recognition of a deeply felt reluctance to be brought back into the Middle Eastern theater is of paramount importance to understanding Biden’s position. Biden has made it clear his intention to focus on rebuilding the US economy during his first term while focusing on the Far East as his foreign policy priority.

Recognizing this reality, Netanyahu felt encouraged to push the boundaries of American tolerance. The crisis has also provided it with a political lifeline.

After a succession of inconclusive elections, the opposition parties were given the opportunity to form what has been called a “just not Bibi” coalition. The conflict saw the withdrawal of the New Right party, unwilling to serve alongside Arab partners.

This gave Netanyahu a chance to form his own alliance, preserving the status quo, while reducing the long-term threat from Hamas in a turn of events so perfectly aligned with US strategic goals it almost seems. designed.

(If you would like to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at [email protected])