Lawmakers keep calling for Israel to curb its intensive military operation in Gaza. But they’re using different — and often confusingly vague — phrasing to push for peace.

That may be the point. Vague terms make it possible for politicians to accomplish two tasks: advocate for some semblance of peace in the Middle East without completely alienating the United States’ closest ally in the region.

But the many phrases — like “sustainable cease-fire,” “mutual and permanent end to the violence,” “immediate de-escalation and cease-fire,” “mutually agreed-upon bilateral humanitarian pause” — run the risk of confusing the general public even more. These calls are complicated by the fact that there’s no internationally agreed-upon definition for a cease-fire.

Catch up with National Security Daily on why politicians keep adding caveats to “cease-fire"