The Economist explains

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

And why it matters

A United Nations truck drives through a street ravaged by Israeli bombing  in Rafah in the souther Gaza Strip.
Image: Getty Images

AS THE FIGHTING in the Gaza Strip between Israel and Hamas intensifies, so do the calls for a “ceasefire”—or a “humanitarian pause”. An emergency joint summit of the 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?

More from The Economist explains

Would legal doping change the Olympics?

The impact would be smaller—and worse—than proponents of drug-taking claim

Do vice-presidential picks matter?

If they have any effect on an election’s result, it is at the margins


What led to the bitter controversy over an Olympics boxing match?

A mighty punch by an Algerian boxer has revived a politically charged dispute


Is this the end of Project 2025, the plan that riled Donald Trump?

The right-wing blueprint for governing has taken centre-stage in America’s presidential campaign

Who should control Western Sahara?

France becomes the latest country to back Morocco’s claim

Who are the Druze, the victims of a deadly strike on Israel?

The religious minority has often been caught up in regional crossfire in the Middle East