Is it a ceasefire if the fire has not ceased?

A question from an era where words actually mattered and journalism didn’t consist of copying White House and Brookings Institute press releases.

Hezbollah and Israel Trade Fire, Further Testing Cease-Fire – The New York Times

Why Israel and Hezbollah Are Still Firing Amid a Lebanon Cease-Fire – The New York Times

It’s not as if the Brits, who are supposed to care about the English language, are any better.

Israel strikes and Hezbollah mortar fire strain Lebanon ceasefire – BBC

Israeli and Hezbollah strikes test limits of ceasefire – BBC

The limit of the ceasefire, one would think, is that the firing must cease. If the firing has not ceased, it is not a ceasefire, it is an ex-ceasefire, as a certain show that once appeared on the Beeb might have pointed out.

But there was never a ceasefire.

Ceasefire is an ancient Arabic word meaning “hah, the infidels have ceased firing on us because of their cowardice, let us attack them at once.”

That’s pretty much how these ceasefires work.

Israel stopped pressing its advantage against Hezbollah after maximum pressure from the Biden administration. Hezbollah responded by doing what Islamic terrorists do, and crossed the Litani river (a violation of the ceasefire), began taking up positions, setting up rocket launchers, and preparing to attack. Israel responded and lots of firing began again… testing the limits of the ceasefire which after four days had kicked the bucket,  shuffled off ‘ts mortal coil, run down the curtain, and joined the choir invisible.

So according to the media it’s a fiery but mostly peaceful ceasefire which is the only kind you can have with Islamic terrorists, Marxists, career criminals, and assorted other enemies of humanity to whom peace is an open door to do their worst. That’s why it’s best to avoid fiery peaceful ceasefires in favor of just winning wars.