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

To many observers, Biden's call for a ceasefire has come too late and does not go far enough. What are the motivations for such a conservative policy though?

Violence ensued on April 15 amid rising tensions in Jerusalem which led to unrest at a holy site important to both Muslims and Jews.
After warnings issued by the Palestinians demanding an Israeli withdrawal went unheeded, Hamas began its aerial bombardment, which was reciprocated, in a conflict estimated to have claimed the lives of over 200.

Despite this, U.S. 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 expressed his support for a ceasefire and discussed U.S. engagement with Egypt and other partners towards that end."

The elevation in language comes amid heightening international disquiet following a third U.S. veto at the UN, where a Security Council statement condemning the violence and calling for an immediate ceasefire was blocked.

U.S. presidents, in particular Democratic presidents, have long defended Israel's right to protect itself from rocket attack.
Indeed, the intensity of the Palestinian barrage has taken many in Israel by surprise. Hamas has fired some 3,150 rockets into Israel, while Israel has responded with 1,500 airstrikes of their own.

Israel's Iron Dome aerial defense system has intercepted 90 percent of the rockets fired from Gaza, but this is a lower success rate than expected, serving to galvanize Netanyahu's resolve in neutralizing the threat. This has also perhaps led to the White House condoning a prolonged campaign before intervention.
This latest skirmish fits within a wider pattern of behavior where the U.S. has acknowledged Israel's right to neutralize threats before ultimately calling for a cessation of hostilities.

To that end, former U.S. Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross told the Financial Times that the change in tone from Washington indicates that this moment has now arrived and that the White House is essentially saying, "OK you've done what you needed to. Now it's time to find a way out of this."

Biden's call on Monday followed typically tough rhetoric from his Israeli counterpart, who had vowed to "do whatever it takes" to "degrade" Hamas.

While some may have seen the change in messaging from the White House as a point of divergence, it is entirely possible that the two were acting in concert. Biden expressing the importance for peace after Netanyahu had presented the alternative.

Biden has also been contending with a more diverse Democratic Party, which has demanded a tougher line on Israel. Calling for a ceasefire was arguably the smallest concession available to the president.

Among those applying pressure, senior Democrats including Bob Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had earlier declared that he was "deeply troubled" by Israeli retaliation while committee member Joaquin Castro conveyed grave skepticism in signing off on a defense contract with Israel worth $735 million. Castro expressed "serious concerns about the timing of this weapons sale, the message it will send to Israel and the world about the urgency of a ceasefire."

Of overwhelming importance in understanding Biden's stance is recognizing a deeply felt reluctance to being drawn back into the Middle Eastern theater. Biden has clearly signaled his intention to focus on rebuilding the U.S. economy during his first term while focusing on the Far East as his foreign policy priority.

Conscious of this reality, Netanyahu has felt emboldened to push the limits of U.S. tolerance. The crisis has also provided him with a political lifeline.

After a succession of inconclusive elections, opposition parties had been given the opportunity to form what was dubbed a "just not Bibi" coalition. The conflict has seen the withdrawal of the New Right party, unwilling to serve alongside Arab partners.

This has given Netanyahu a chance at forming an alliance of his own, preserving the status quo, while reducing the long-term threat of Hamas in a turn of events so perfectly aligned to U.S. strategic objectives it appears almost engineered.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)