There is a fundamental difference between the American (and international) approach and the Israeli approach to halting the violence. The western democracies and their legal system view a cease-fire as a desirable end to be achieved, in and of itself, to be followed by negotiations to resolve differences diplomatically. Israel believes that Hamas is a terrorist group that is not interested in negotiations, only in the elimination of Israel (and they say so in their charter). If there is to be no negotiations (and Hamas has NEVER engaged in any direct talks with Israel) then what is the point of an interim cease-fire? The value systems of the two sides are fundamentally different. The only side interested in protecting non belligerents is Israel. Hamas wants more civilian deaths because it is something they can exploit in order to weaken Israel. To further illustrate this, Hamas just released a video warning that time is running out for the people they hold captive. There was no evidence that the victims shown were still alive. It was only another step in the propaganda war that Hamas has been waging.
The UN was founded in an attempt to avoid another conflict like World War II. UN institutions are built around the idea that war for territorial gain is to be penalized. The rise of terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaida, ISIS, or Boko Haram exposes a serious weakness in the structure of the UN. The existence of such organizations inside member states is an internal matter the UN cannot address. When the terrorists attack other countries the UN calls it a criminal act and relies on the host country to deal with it. The UN can exert pressure on an attacked country to limit, or halt, retaliation. It cannot do anything to prevent the terrorists from striking first.
Wetherhorn 