Calls for a Ceasefire During the Gaza War

Calls to stop or suspend fighting during the Gaza war did not describe one uniform policy. The terms included humanitarian pauses, humanitarian truces, immediate ceasefires, and a ceasefire limited to Ramadan.[2][7] Phased proposals sought to connect an initial halt to hostage-prisoner exchanges, Israeli withdrawals, negotiations, and a permanent cessation of hostilities.[6][4]

The debate developed through statements by governments and international officials, votes in the UN General Assembly and Security Council, negotiations mediated by outside states, and public campaigns. Resolutions frequently combined demands concerning fighting, hostages, humanitarian access, and civilian protection, while members disagreed over their wording and conditions.[8][9]

The record includes adopted resolutions, failed drafts, temporary agreements, and proposals whose acceptance or implementation remained disputed. Adoption of a UN resolution did not mean that Israel and Hamas had accepted its terms. The General Assembly resolutions discussed here were nonbinding, while Security Council texts had different wording and diplomatic significance.[10][11]

Calls to de-escalate began in the first days of the war. On October 7, 2023, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk called for an immediate stop to the violence and urged the parties and regional countries to de-escalate. General Assembly President Dennis Francis urged the parties to refrain from further violence and seek an immediate path to peace. A Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs account also quotes UNRWA as supporting calls for an immediate ceasefire and a halt to violence everywhere on October 8.[12]

On October 10, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel urged the parties to cease all forms of violence and comply with international humanitarian and human-rights law. The Commission said that addressing what it regarded as the conflict's root causes, including what it called an illegal occupation, was a path toward sustainable peace. The cited account also notes an October 12 statement whose title referred to a truce, but does not reproduce the full wording of that call.[12]

On October 16, a Russian Security Council draft calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, hostage release, and aid access failed to obtain the required votes. A Brazilian draft calling for humanitarian pauses received 12 votes in favor on October 18, with the United States opposed and Russia and the United Kingdom abstaining. That day, Secretary-General António Guterres called for “an immediate humanitarian ceasefire” to provide time and space to ease “the epic human suffering” in Gaza.[13]

In a November 7 interview, former Israeli National Security Council head Jacob Nagel argued that US demands described publicly as calls for a ceasefire were, in his interpretation, calls for a humanitarian pause. He said such a pause could facilitate aid in southern Gaza and described a possible northern pause as brief and conditional on hostage releases. This was Nagel's interpretation, not a direct statement of US policy.[14]

On October 27, 2023, the General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/ES-10/21, “Protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations,” by 120 votes in favor, 14 against, and 45 abstentions. It called for an immediate, durable, and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities, humanitarian access, compliance with international law, and the immediate and unconditional release of civilians unlawfully held captive.[1]

A Canada-led amendment seeking to condemn Hamas's October 7 terrorist attack and demand hostage release failed to obtain the required two-thirds majority. Israel and the United States opposed the resolution; Israel argued that a ceasefire would give Hamas time to rearm, while the United States objected that the text did not name Hamas.[10][15] Hamas welcomed the resolution and called for its implementation, while Israeli officials rejected its ceasefire demand and said fighting would continue until Hamas's infrastructure was destroyed and the hostages returned.[16][17]

The Security Council adopted resolution 2712 on November 15 by 12 votes in favor, none against, and three abstentions. It called for urgent and extended humanitarian pauses and corridors, safe aid delivery and medical evacuations, and the immediate and unconditional release of hostages held by Hamas and other groups.[8][2] On December 8, the United States vetoed a United Arab Emirates-sponsored draft demanding an immediate humanitarian ceasefire; the other 13 members supported it and the United Kingdom abstained. US objections included the absence of a condemnation of Hamas and the failure to make a ceasefire conditional on hostage release.[5][18]

On December 12, the General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/ES-10/22 by 153 votes in favor, 10 against, and 23 abstentions. It demanded an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, compliance with international law, civilian protection, hostage release, and humanitarian access.[11][19] US and Austrian amendments addressing Hamas's attack and the hostages failed. Austria objected that the resolution did not name Hamas, while Egypt emphasized civilian suffering and Israel urged states seeking a ceasefire to demand that Hamas release the hostages and lay down its arms.[19]

Security Council resolution 2720, adopted on December 22 by 13 votes in favor with the United States and Russia abstaining, focused on humanitarian relief and a UN Senior Humanitarian Coordinator. The final text called for expanded humanitarian access and the creation of conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities rather than an immediate ceasefire.[20]

On March 22, 2024, Russia and China vetoed a US-drafted resolution calling for an immediate and sustained ceasefire connected to civilian protection, humanitarian assistance, and diplomatic efforts to release hostages. Eleven members voted for it, and the text condemned Hamas's October 7 terrorist attack.[5][21] Three days later, the Council adopted resolution 2728 by 14 votes in favor, with the United States abstaining. It demanded an immediate ceasefire for Ramadan leading to a lasting, sustainable ceasefire, the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, and expanded humanitarian assistance.[5][7] Israel viewed the text as failing to make hostage release a prerequisite, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cancelled a planned delegation visit to Washington after the vote.[5]

On June 10, the Council adopted resolution 2735 by 14 votes in favor, with Russia abstaining. It endorsed the three-phase proposal announced by President Joe Biden and urged Israel and Hamas to implement it.[6][22] The United States voted in favor after abstaining on the Council's first three post-October 7 resolutions addressing pauses or ceasefire-related measures, marking a change in its voting position.[9]

On November 20, 2024, the United States vetoed a Security Council draft calling for an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire and the immediate, unconditional release of hostages. The other 14 members supported it. Washington objected that the draft did not explicitly make hostage release a condition of ending the fighting.[5][23]

On December 11, the General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/ES-10/26, “Demand for ceasefire in Gaza,” by 158 votes in favor, nine against, and 13 abstentions. It demanded an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire and separately reiterated the demand for hostage release.[5][24]

On June 12, 2025, the General Assembly adopted resolution A/ES-10/27 by 149 votes in favor, 12 against, and 19 abstentions. It demanded an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire, reiterated the demand for hostage release, and called for implementation of resolution 2735, including provisions concerning prisoner exchanges, civilian returns, and Israeli troop withdrawal.[25]

A Security Council draft submitted on June 4, 2025, similarly demanded an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire, hostage release, and humanitarian access. On June 5, 14 members voted in favor, but the United States vetoed it. The source notes that the ceasefire demand was not explicitly conditioned on hostage release.[26]

The recurring dispute concerned what a halt would require and what outcome it was intended to produce. Israel's stated position in November 2023 was that there would be no general ceasefire without the hostages' release.[27] In July 2024, Netanyahu's office said any agreement had to preserve Israel's ability to resume fighting until its war objectives were achieved, prevent weapons smuggling from Egypt, prevent armed Hamas members from returning to northern Gaza, and maximize the number of living hostages released.[9]

The United States distinguished humanitarian pauses from a general ceasefire. A December 11, 2023, State Department briefing said Washington supported pauses but opposed a ceasefire that, in its view, would leave Hamas's leadership in Gaza able to plan future terrorist attacks. It also described US efforts to obtain pauses and more predictable humanitarian corridors.[28] Biden had earlier raised a possible “tactical pause” to facilitate aid while continuing to support Israel's operation against Hamas.[27]

US positions changed with the texts under consideration. Washington opposed or abstained on several ceasefire-related resolutions, abstained on resolution 2728 in March 2024, and supported resolution 2735 in June. Its explanations repeatedly addressed whether a text condemned Hamas, acknowledged October 7, dealt with hostages, or linked a ceasefire to their release.[5][22]

Advocacy organizations also offered interpretations of the consequences of an unconditional ceasefire. The American Jewish Committee argued that one could allow Hamas to regroup and continue operating.[27] The Jewish Virtual Library's account of the June 2025 General Assembly resolution criticized its failure to condition the ceasefire demand on hostage release. These positions are distinct from the resolutions' recorded wording and vote totals.[25]

The November 2023 agreement between Israel and Hamas was a temporary halt linked to a hostage-prisoner exchange, not an agreement to end the war. On November 21, Israel's cabinet approved a four-day truce involving about 50 hostages held in Gaza and about 150 Palestinian prisoners held in Israel, as well as increased fuel, equipment, and humanitarian aid. The truce could be extended by 24 hours for every additional 10 hostages released.[29]

The Qatar- and Egypt-mediated agreement was announced as a four-day halt beginning later that week. Israel said it was part of an effort to return the hostages and that fighting would resume, while Hamas called it a “humanitarian truce.”[3] The exchange structure illustrated the distinction between a temporary pause and a permanent ceasefire.

The United States also pursued pauses as a means of facilitating aid without endorsing a general ceasefire. Israel agreed to daily four-hour humanitarian pauses in November, and the State Department later described efforts to secure pauses and predictable aid corridors.[28][27]

UN texts used these terms differently. Resolution 2712 called for urgent and extended humanitarian pauses and corridors.[2] Resolution 2720 focused on humanitarian access and conditions for a sustainable cessation, while resolution 2728 demanded a Ramadan ceasefire leading to a lasting, sustainable ceasefire.[20][7]

On May 31, 2024, Biden presented a three-phase proposal that he described as an Israeli offer and a roadmap to an enduring ceasefire and the release of all hostages. The six-week first phase would include a full ceasefire, Israeli withdrawal from populated areas, an initial hostage-prisoner exchange, the return of displaced civilians, and increased aid. The parties would negotiate the second phase, involving the remaining living hostages, further Israeli withdrawal, and a permanent cessation of hostilities if Hamas met its commitments. The third phase would begin reconstruction and return the remains of deceased hostages.[4]

The United States, Egypt, and Qatar called on Israel and Hamas to consolidate an agreement based on these principles. Hamas said it responded positively to calls for a permanent ceasefire, withdrawal, reconstruction, and an exchange, while seeking additional guarantees and commitments. French President Emmanuel Macron and British Foreign Secretary David Cameron also urged acceptance of the proposal.[30]

Resolution 2735 endorsed the framework on June 10. Its first phase covered a six-week ceasefire, exchanges, Israeli withdrawal from populated areas, civilian returns, and humanitarian assistance. The second envisaged the remaining hostage releases, full Israeli withdrawal, and a permanent end to hostilities by agreement; the third concerned reconstruction and the return of deceased hostages' remains.[22] The proposal stated that the ceasefire would continue beyond six weeks if negotiations continued.[4]

Acceptance remained contested. A June 6 Mosaic/Tikvah Ideas item reported that Hamas had rejected the American and Israeli offer, while US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said negotiations were continuing.[31] After resolution 2735 passed, Hamas welcomed it and said it was prepared to cooperate with mediators, but had not formally accepted the entire deal.[22]

A further three-phase ceasefire and hostage-exchange agreement was announced on January 15, 2025. Its six-week first phase included a cessation of hostilities, phased releases of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, Israeli withdrawals from populated areas, civilian returns, and increased aid. Negotiations on a permanent second phase had not occurred by the end of the first phase on March 2, and Israel resumed its military campaign on March 18.[32]

Another agreement, based on President Donald Trump's 20-point plan, took effect on October 10, 2025, following indirect negotiations involving the United States, Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey. The cited account states that it had been signed in Sharm el-Sheikh on October 9 and provided for an end to military operations, an initial Israeli withdrawal, and hostage and prisoner releases. The final 20 living hostages were released on October 13; at that point, the source reported that four of 28 deceased hostages had been returned.[33][34]

On November 17, the Security Council adopted resolution 2803 by 13 votes in favor, with Russia and China abstaining. It endorsed key parts of the 20-point plan and authorized a temporary International Stabilization Force and Board of Peace. Hamas rejected provisions assigning the force a role in Gaza, including disarmament, arguing that this would make it a party to the conflict.[33]

The debate was not confined to governments and international institutions. Protests supporting Palestinians included demands for a ceasefire, while international officials repeatedly pressed for pauses or a broader halt. Because these calls ranged from temporary humanitarian measures to a permanent end to hostilities, public use of the term did not always specify the same conditions as diplomatic proposals.[27]

A September 2024 Palestinian-Israeli survey tested a measure combining a permanent ceasefire with the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners. It reported support among 87% of Palestinians and 48% of Israelis, the highest support recorded for the four bilateral confidence-building measures tested. The cited page does not provide fieldwork dates or detailed methodology for that particular result.[35]

General Assembly resolutions received large majorities in October and December 2023 and again in December 2024 and June 2025.[1][11] Security Council proposals, however, were variously vetoed, revised, or adopted, and differed over pauses, ceasefires, hostages, aid, and civilian protection.[5][6] The votes demonstrate broad international support for some form of halt while also documenting persistent disagreement over its terms and implementation.

The central controversy was whether a ceasefire should take effect independently or be linked to hostage release and other commitments. Israel and the United States repeatedly sought such a link or language addressing Hamas and October 7.[5][27] Supporters of immediate or unconditional ceasefire demands instead emphasized civilian protection, humanitarian access, and stopping hostilities.[16][7]

The wording of each text therefore mattered. Drafts and resolutions were criticized for omitting an explicit condemnation of Hamas, failing to recognize Israel's right of self-defense, or treating ceasefire and hostage demands as separate requirements.[5][18] Other disagreements concerned whether a text called for a brief pause, a Ramadan ceasefire, an unconditional halt, or a negotiated sequence leading to a permanent cessation.[21][7]

The terms were not interchangeable. A humanitarian pause was generally temporary and limited in purpose, while the November 2023 truce was tied to a specific exchange.[2][3] The May 2024 framework instead proposed a sequence of exchanges, withdrawals, negotiations, and reconstruction intended to lead from an initial ceasefire to a permanent end to hostilities.[4][22] Adoption or endorsement of these texts did not establish that every party had accepted or implemented every provision.