The difference between a “ceasefire” and a “humanitarian pause”

livemint.com:

Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference in Saudi Arabia on November 11th, for instance, called for the former. Two days later the 27 member states of the European Union reiterated their support for the latter. America will also only support pauses, as will the G7 group of rich countries.

The UN, by contrast, has backed a ceasefire. Israel itself categorically rejects a ceasefire, but on November 9th agreed to implement daily four-hour “humanitarian pauses" in northern Gaza. So what is the difference between the two, and why does this divide countries and international organisations? It is not just a matter of semantics.

The phrases suggest different approaches to ending the conflict. The UN defines a “humanitarian pause" as a “temporary cessation of hostilities purely for humanitarian purposes". Such pauses are usually limited to a defined period and to a specific area where the humanitarian activities are to be carried out.

In the case of Gaza, the pause, which only applies to specific neighbourhoods in the north of the enclave, should allow civilians to evacuate from combat areas and permit the UN and NGOs to bring in supplies of food and water. A ceasefire, by contrast, goes further. The UN defines it as a “suspension of fighting agreed upon by the parties to a conflict, typically as part of a political process".

The goal is to “allow parties to engage in dialogue, including the possibility of reaching a permanent political settlement". It is thus a longer-term arrangement, in which both sides stop fighting, often in the entire area of the conflict. To give two recent examples: at the start of the most recent Sudanese civil war in April, the UN negotiated “pauses" lasting a few hours to deliver