Several countries, as well as the United Nations, have called for a ceasefire in the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

But others - including the UK, US and EU do not support the idea, saying it would benefit Hamas, which has been designated a terrorist organisation by the US and several Western governments.

As we've been reporting, the US is instead pushing for a humanitarian pause.

But what's the difference?

Compared to a formal ceasefire, humanitarian pauses tend to last for short periods of time, sometimes just a few hours - and usually cover a defined period and location.

They are typically implemented purely with the aim of providing humanitarian support, as opposed to achieving long-term political solutions, according to the United Nations.

Ceasefires, meanwhile, are intended to be long-term, and often have an aim to allow parties to engage in dialogue, including the possibility of reaching a permanent political settlement, the UN says.

***copied***

Okay, I understand

Hmmm
It is complicated and not as straight forward as it seems

Ceasefire is basically a halt to advance the hostilities due to an emergence of events that could bring a solution to the warring parties.
So ceasefire are very difficult to implement because no one has the control over the event that would make warring parties to halt.
In this case it is unlikely because the war is between a terrorists organisation and a national body.
This is different from the case of north Korea and south Korea where the us and china helped signed an armatice..
..

As for humanitarian pause..it is more common where one side in control of the arena priotise women and children to be distinguished or evacuated from the war zone(which is still ongoing)
For example the encirclement of Georgians militants by the Russians army..the Russian gave a timeline for the evacuation of Georgian women and children from its encirclement as distinct from the militants/terrorists or face anhilation