Both Labour’s Keir Starmer and the Tory PM Rishi Sunak have called for a “sustainable ceasefire” in Gaza.
It’s a step away from the unwavering support the UK’s top politicians have been showing for Israel’s attacks against the Palestinian militants Hamas since war broke out in October.
Here’s what the means, and why this wording is significant.
What is a ‘sustainable ceasefire’?
Politicians who have used the term have suggested it means an end to all violence between Israel and Hamas in a truce built to last.
This new phrase took off on Saturday, when foreign secretary David Cameron and German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock used it together.
Writing a joint piece for The Sunday Times, they said: “Our goal cannot simply be an end to fighting today. It must be peace lasting for days, years, generations.”
They blamed Hamas for the war which has raged since October 7, but said Israel needs to “discriminate sufficiently between terrorists and civilians”.
It comes after a week-long temporary truce between the warring factions expired on December 1. According to the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza, close to 20,000 Palestinians have been killed since the war began.
The new term also featured in a draft of a UN Security Council resolution, which was meant to make it easier for the UK to move from its previous abstention on the issue to voting in favour.
Sunak also said on Monday that Israel still had a right to defend itself in the wake of Hamas’s massacre on October 7.
However, he said Israel must do so in “accordance with humanitarian law” adding: “It’s clear that too many civilian lives have been lost and nobody wants to see this conflict go on a day longer than it has to.
“And that’s why we’ve been consistent – and I made this point in parliament last week – in calling for a sustainable ceasefire, whereby hostages are released, rockets stopped being fired into Israel by Hamas and we continue to get more aid.”
However, his spokesperson said the term did not mean Israel’s attacks had to stop immediately, adding: “We need the right conditions to ensure that it lasts as long as possible.”
The Labour leader soon followed suit, and said it was important “to get to a sustainable ceasefire as quickly as possible”.
Starmer also suggested pausing fighting first so that the remaining Hamas hostages can be freed, and to allow aid to enter Gaza.
He added: “It will have to be a political process to a two-stage solution which, in the end, is the only way that this is going to be resolved.”
Why is the language in this war so important?
Since the controversial war broke out in October, the international community has been divided over its response.
The West – particularly the US – is known as an ally to Israel.
Caveats within calls for some form of restraint from the Israeli side mean governments can discourage the violence without jeopardising its relationship with Israel too much.
Politicians in the West have repeatedly used a range of terms to call for some form of resolution in the Middle East, such as a mutual and permanent end to violence, an immediate de-escalation and ceasefire or a humanitarian pause.
As former State Department lawyer Brian Finucane told POLITICO: “These are not terms of art with fixed, well-defined meanings, so the devil really is in the details.”
The difference between each of the main phrases appears to come down to two main elements: when the violence is meant to stop, now or at another, undefined point in the future, and whether both sides need to agree to put down arms at the same time.
For instance, the UK government has previously stopped short of backing an “effective ceasefire”, instead pushing for a humanitarian pause.
Education minister told Sky News back in October: “A ceasefire at this time would allow Hamas to regroup, it doesn’t mean release of the hostages, there’s no guarantee Hamas would keep the ceasefire – they haven’t kept ceasefires in the past.”