The question of whether to call for a ceasefire or a humanitarian pause in the Israel-Hamas conflict is dividing political leaders worldwide.
Keir Starmer said on Tuesday that a ceasefire could risk further violence, putting him at odds with at least 13 of his shadow ministers who have called for a permanent end to the fighting.
"While I understand calls for a ceasefire at this stage, I do not believe that it is the correct position now," the Labour leader told the foreign policy think tank Chatham House in London. An immediate ceasefire could allow Hamas to carry out further attacks, he said, and might prevent the release of the hostages kidnapped during the 7 October attacks. Instead, he said, a humanitarian pause was the answer, to allow aid to reach the besieged Gaza Strip and for Palestinians to evacuate.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Latest Videos From
What is a humanitarian pause?
According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), a humanitarian pause is defined as a "temporary cessation of hostilities purely for humanitarian purposes", to allow aid into war zones. It requires "the agreement of all relevant parties", and is usually in force for "a defined period and specific geographic area".
"I was encouraged in the last days by what seemed to be a growing consensus in the international community… for the need of at least a humanitarian pause in the fighting," said UN Secretary-General António Guterres.
Much of the international community is calling for this kind of temporary decision, said HuffPost, because Gaza "has been under siege for more than three weeks", with food, fuel and goods blocked by Israeli forces "in retaliation" for Hamas's attacks on Israeli soil.
"A humanitarian pause would effectively be a truce to allow passage of aid or displaced people," Samir Puri, a lecturer on war studies at King's College London, told Al Jazeera.
How does that differ from a ceasefire?
Calls for a ceasefire "have been growing louder worldwide", said Reuters, as Israel's bombardment of Gaza escalates into a humanitarian crisis and communications blackout, with hundreds of thousands of people protesting in cities around the world in support of Palestinians.
OCHA defines a ceasefire as "a suspension of fighting agreed upon by the parties to the conflict, typically as part of a political process". It is "intended to be long-term".
Ceasefires "do not announce the end of a conflict", said DW, but they intend to "put the opposing parties in communication with one another about potential permanent settlements". Unlike a humanitarian pause, the declaration of a ceasefire "often applies to the entire geographical area of a conflict".
A ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is effectively "unimaginable" at the moment, said Puri, given that "a binding agreement with signatories and associated de-escalatory obligations" would be required.
During a visit to Russia last week, a member of a Hamas delegation reportedly said the group would not release the hostages until a ceasefire agreement was reached.
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that a ceasefire would mean asking Israel to surrender to terrorism and barbarism. "The Bible says that there is a time for peace and a time for war," he said. "This is a time for war."
Why are countries divided on the issue?
Last week, Russia and China vetoed a US resolution at the UN Security Council calling for a humanitarian pause. Instead, they called for a ceasefire – a motion proposed twice by Russia, and vetoed by the UK and the US: "both of whom are accustomed to shielding Israel from Security Council action", said Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based broadcaster.
On Friday, only 14 countries opposed a Jordanian motion at the UN General Assembly calling for a sustained humanitarian truce, with the motion passing by 120 votes to 14, with 45 countries abstaining including the UK, Ukraine and Germany. The US chose not to back the motion at all, said HuffPost. "Like many other Western allies, Washington wanted the motion to explicitly mention Hamas, rather than just condemning 'all attacks of violence'."
