A ‘ceasefire’ in Gaza or a ‘pause’? Even world leaders are confused.
Pause or ceasefire?
The distinction is crucial to the crisis in Israel and Gaza. But it continues to confuse world leaders.
During a visit to Washington last week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada was asked whether he supported a ceasefire — a phrase widely understood to mean a cessation of fighting that could last months or even years.
Israel and many Western governments oppose a ceasefire, saying a prolonged pause in Israel’s offensive against Hamas would simply give the Palestinian terror group time to rearm itself.
The United States and several other countries, including members of the Group of 7 in a joint statement instead, they are pushing the Israeli government to agree to much shorter “pauses.” Such lulls are broadly defined as breaks in fighting that may last hours or days for specific humanitarian missions, such as the delivery of aid to blockaded Gaza and the possible release of hostages held by Hamas.
In a video that circulated widely online, Mr. Trudeau appeared momentarily unsure which one he was supporting. “We need to end the violence – we need to see a humanitarian pause so we can flow – we need to end the levels of violence that we are seeing,” Mr Trudeau said.
The distinction may seem small to some, but not to the Israeli government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said last week that “calls for a ceasefire are calls for Israel to surrender to Hamas, to surrender to terrorism.” But he recently suggested he would be open to short “tactical pauses.”
Experts say neither term is defined in international law.
“The main difference has to do with the purpose of the suspension – whether it is to carry out a specific humanitarian activity without risk of harm from the active fighting, or whether it is a general suspension of hostilities ,” said Emanuela-Chiara Gillard, a spokesperson for the UN. associate fellow at Chatham House in London, wrote in an essay on this topic this week.
“Suspension of hostilities for specific humanitarian purposes is generally limited in scope – in terms of duration and location. Although they pause the fighting, this is usually a short and localized interruption,” Ms Gillard noted. Usually this involves a very specific agreement between the warring parties on matters such as the precise time windows and routes allocated to aid convoys or refugees.
By contrast, she added, ceasefires that are not related to specific humanitarian goals “may affect the achievement of the strategic military objectives of the hostilities.”
“The use of inconsistent and/or ambiguous terminology has contributed to the confusion,” she noted.
That confusion even seemed to trap President Biden.
When confronted at a campaign event last week by a heckler who demanded he support a ceasefire, Mr. Biden briefly suggested he agreed with her position.
“I am the man who convinced Bibi to call for a ceasefire to release the prisoners,” the president said, referring to Mr Netanyahu. But Mr Netanyahu firmly opposes a ceasefire, and that has never been US policy.
Mr Biden said earlier in the event that he was in favor of a “pause” in the fighting, saying this “means giving time to get the prisoners out” – in another apparent reference to the more than 200 hostages held by Hamas in Gaza, several of whom are believed to be Americans.
As a political issue, many Democrats under pressure from liberal activists angry about the civilian toll of Israel’s offensive have embraced the idea of a “pause.” That position allows them to show sympathy for the Palestinians in Gaza without angering aggressively pro-Israel voters.
But that middle ground can also be difficult. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, had been vilified by some longtime progressive allies for supporting a pause but not a ceasefire.
“I don’t know how you could have a ceasefire, a permanent ceasefire, with an organization like Hamas, which is committed to unrest and chaos and destroying the state of Israel,” Mr. Sanders said . told CNN on November 5.
“The biggest political disappointment of our generation,” said Briahna Joy Gray, who served as national press secretary for Mr. Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign. responded to X.
Amid the general confusion, the Biden administration has made its position clear in recent days: pauses good, ceasefires bad.
Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken delivered that message during a visit to Israel late last week. Speaking to reporters in Amman, Jordan, Mr Blinken ruled out US support for a ceasefire, which he said would “simply leave Hamas in place, able to regroup and repeat what it did on 7 October did.”
But Mr. Blinken endorsed the idea of shorter “pauses.”
“We believe that pauses can be a crucial mechanism for protecting civilians, for getting aid, for removing foreigners, while still allowing Israel to achieve its goal of defeating Hamas,” Mr. Blinken added .
He said he has “discussed in depth with Israeli leaders about how, when and where such arrangements could be implemented, and what needs to be done to make them possible.”
Mr. Blinken — or whoever runs his official account on X — has stumbled on terminology himself. On October 9, a message appeared on Mr. Blinken’s account stating that during a phone call with the Turkish foreign minister “encouraged” Turkey’s plea for a ceasefire. The message was quickly deleted, with a State Department spokesman, Matthew Miller, calling it “sadly worded.”
Shortly after Mr Blinken left Israel, Mr Netanyahu appeared to have dismissed any talk of halting Israel’s military offensive. “I have made it clear that we are moving forward with full force and that Israel refuses any temporary ceasefire that does not include the release of our hostages,” the Israeli leader said of his meeting with the US Secretary of State.
But in an interview with ABC News broadcast on Monday, Mr Netanyahu appeared to soften his position, saying Israel was open to “tactical little pauses, an hour here, an hour there.” A senior Israeli official echoed that sentiment in a briefing on Tuesday, saying his government was considering local pauses in specific areas to allow for more humanitarian aid flows.
The official added that Israel would only agree to breaks that did not affect the momentum of its military operation, and that breaks were not necessary for aid trucks to enter southern Gaza from Egypt.
During an interview with CNN on Tuesday, an Israeli military spokesman said his country is already introducing pauses to allow Palestinians to leave northern Gaza, where the heaviest fighting is taking place.
The spokesman, Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus, said that for the past four days, Israel has allowed “windows” between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. “where the Palestinians are informed in advance by us that we will continue to shoot” to allow civilians to enter. to evacuate from northern Gaza “to the relative safety of the south.”
But aid groups say much more is needed, including a major increase in the number of trucks allowed into Gaza from Egypt to deliver humanitarian supplies such as food, water and medicine to an increasingly desperate population.
To add to the confusion, some organizations have adopted a hybrid term that appears to combine “ceasefire” and “humanitarian pause.”
The leaders of several major bodies of the United Nations and the International Rescue Committee have supported what they call a “humanitarian ceasefire” to import aid, evacuate the sick and injured and secure the release of hostages.
The International Rescue Committee said in a statement on November 5 that any such cessation of fighting should last at least five days, saying that “a stop of a few hours will not allow anything substantial to be achieved.”
As for the terminology involved, the statement read: “The words are less important than the content.”