Arguing that Gaza's civilians urgently need
a cessation of fighting,
regardless of what it is called and how it is described.
The difference between a "cease fire" and a "humanitarian pause (in
fighting)" may not be the deep gulf that it appears.
Presumably a "cease fire" is intended to be permanent while a "pause"
is not. But there have been dozens of ceasefires between Israel and
HAMAS in Gaza, and each one did end. HAMAS broke some of them, and
Israel broke others. Conversely, a cease fire which wasn't explicitly
designated as permanent could nonetheless be extended, as the article
points out.
I do not mean to say that the difference is nothing at all. If a
"pause" is agreed to last for a week (say), the sides would probably
resume fighting after that week. By contrast, a cease fire with no
scheduled end might last for months — many of them did in the past.
So the details of a truce do matter, but not in an all-or-nothing way.
The crucial point is that in practice there is no way Israel could
eliminate HAMAS from Gaza, except by eliminating Palestinians from
Gaza — and that would be an enormous war crime that nothing could
excuse. Israel cannot achieve the "victory" it says it is aiming for.
As for HAMAS's war crimes on Oct 7,
they were based on surprise. It lacks the power to commit more crimes
now. Therefore, Israel has no opportunity to prevent further HAMAS
war crimes by fighting HAMAS now. It can kill some HAMAS fighters for
revenge, but only by killing far more Palestinian civilians. The
sooner Israel stops its bombardment and siege, the less its war crimes will be.