Most of the world agrees that the intensity of Israel’s attack on Gaza, while aimed at Hamas, is causing unbearable suffering to its civilians, pummelled from the air and running out of food, water and medical supplies.
The US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, the top diplomat for Israel’s staunchest ally, delivered a personal message in Tel Aviv last week that more must be done to “protect Palestinian civilians” trapped after Israel laid siege to the territory.
But if there is a broad consensus that too many innocent people in Gaza are dying, injured, ill, hungry and thirsty, there is fierce disagreement about what should be done to relieve their agony, and how to structure and describe any break in fighting.
Blinken and key Israeli allies have called for a “humanitarian pause”, a break in fighting to let aid into the territory. Leading aid organisations, UN experts and countries with a pro-Palestine tradition have called for a ceasefire. There have also been calls for a truce, for a humanitarian truce, for de-escalation, for a humanitarian ceasefire and for a cessation of hostilities – a proliferation of terms that have made a bitter debate even more confusing.
All involve a break in fighting so aid supplies can get into Gaza. The dispute is how long those breaks should last, and on what terms they should be made. Supporters of different options have fiercely attacked each other, trading accusations of complicity in terrorism, war crimes and the killing of civilians. It is a debate made even more confusing by the fact that there is no formally agreed legal definition of either a ceasefire or a humanitarian pause.
“The difference between the two is more political than legal,” said Helen Duffy, professor of international humanitarian law and human rights at Leiden University in the Netherlands.
But for many people, the heart of the dispute is whether and how Israel’s military should keep targeting Hamas in Gaza in the wake of the militant group’s 7 October attacks on Israel in which more than 1,400 people were massacred – the majority of whom were civilians killed in their homes, their streets and at a desert dance party.
“Ceasefire or cessation of hostilities suggests [an agreement] that is, or at least could be, a permanent end to hostilities, and ceasefire agreement suggests negotiation, of course,” Duffy said. “Whereas ‘humanitarian pause’ sends a clear message that it is temporary and for one purpose only.”
Those who oppose a ceasefire say Israel has an urgent need to defend itself against a group that has threatened more attacks on civilians, denies Israel’s right to exist and has been officially designated a terrorist organisation by countries including the US and UK. “A ceasefire now would leave Hamas in place, able to regroup and repeat what it did on 7 October,” Blinken said at a news conference on Saturday.
Those demanding a ceasefire say a humanitarian pause will not offer the time and security needed to meet even basic civilian needs, given the scale of damage, death and deprivation in Gaza after a month of intense fighting. “It is our position that a ceasefire is imperative to deal with the humanitarian consequences of this crisis,” said Egypt’s foreign minister, Sameh Shoukry, speaking to journalists alongside Blinken.
Amnesty International, the human rights organisation, is among the groups calling for a ceasefire. The damage to infrastructure and water pipelines to hospitals, and the rebuilding of medical and food supplies, needs time and a guarantee that repair work will not be attacked again.
“If you pause [fighting] for a few hours or days, it would be insufficient given the scale of needs within Gaza,” said Amnesty International UK’s crisis response manager, Kristyan Benedict. “A durable, negotiated ceasefire is needed to get aid in, food, medicine and water, to evacuate those needing medical treatment and repair infrastructure, particularly hospitals and shelters that have been bombed. You can’t do that in a matter of hours or days – you need certainty to be able to rebuild.”
Benedict added that any ceasefire would cover all parties, not just Israel, so it would also protect Israeli citizens from rocket attacks originating in Gaza.
Bridging the gap are pragmatists who say a humanitarian pause should be backed as a life-saving first step towards a more permanent agreement. Peter Ricketts, former national security adviser to David Cameron, said: “Is there any point in calling for a ceasefire? If you want to take a principled position, then, yes, absolutely. If your interest is in practical proposals as a first step to a ceasefire, then a humanitarian pause has to be the priority.” The International Crisis Group made a similar call. “The best option now is for the US and its allies to press Israel to pause the bombardment, honour its pledge to allow humanitarian access to Gaza and lay out conditions for a permanent ceasefire, including for Gaza’s reconstruction.”