There is a growing call for Israel to halt its attacks on Gaza, but the question remains: what should this cessation of violence be called? The terms "ceasefire" and "humanitarian pause" have been used, but they have different implications and supporters.

A ceasefire is an end to the fighting between parties involved in a conflict, typically as part of a political process. It aims to allow for dialogue and the possibility of a permanent political settlement. On the other hand, a humanitarian pause is a temporary cessation of hostilities purely for humanitarian purposes. It is meant to provide a defined period and specific geographic area for the delivery of aid.

The dispute lies in the duration and terms of these breaks in fighting. Supporters of different options have fiercely attacked each other, trading accusations of complicity in terrorism and war crimes. The lack of a formally agreed legal definition for either a ceasefire or a humanitarian pause adds to the confusion.

While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected calls for a ceasefire, the Biden administration is increasingly pushing for a humanitarian pause. Israel opposes a ceasefire because it has not achieved its goal of dismantling Hamas. However, the mounting civilian deaths in Gaza and the Biden administration's concerns for civilian safety contribute to the calls for a ceasefire.

The question remains: what should be done to relieve the suffering in Gaza, and how should this break in fighting be structured and described? The debate continues as the world grapples with finding a solution that ensures the safety and well-being of civilians caught in the crossfire.