David Ignatius at the Washington Post argues that “Kerry’s mistake isn’t any bias against Israel but rather a bias in favor of an executable, short-term deal.” But it’s conceivable that both of those factors played a part. As a political consideration, the administration would have benefitted from a short-term deal. Perhaps because of tragic loss of life, the United States would rather see a ceasefire than Hamas dealt a mortal blow. And that is almost certainly one of the reasons Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields.

It is worth remembering that Kerry, who is rightly considered a longtime ally of Israel, has changed his tone considerably since joining the administration. He’s accused Israel of veing a few short steps removed from “apartheid,” he peddled the myth of Israel’s imminent demographic demise, and he was conveniently caught on a hot mic sarcastically dismissing Israel’s pinpoint strikes, and insinuating that he, John Kerry, was not invited to embark on a ceasefire talks because Israel was buying time to finish off Hamas. (If that’s Israel’s goal, they should have invited Kerry earlier.)

But maybe the United States doesn’t want to take sides anymore. Maybe the Obama Administration’s recent dealings in the Middle East reflect this attitude. Maybe Kerry’s actions weren’t a mistake but an attempt to show Israel’s enemies that we can be even-handed. Because we either have an incompetent Secretary of State or a momentous shift in Middle East policy. Either way, Kerry’s actions have created a bigger mess.