Over the past couple of weeks, I have called and emailed my two senators--Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren--to encourage them to oppose S. Res. 498 (the Senate's pro-Israel resolution) and to call for a ceasefire.
Here is the response I received from Ed Markey today.
Thank you for writing me about the recent violence in the Gaza Strip. It was good to hear from you on this serious issue.
The recent escalation of violence between Israel and Hamas is an unfortunate continuation of a deep-seated conflict. The fighting has taken lives, destroyed homes and displaced families. Despite this discouraging news, I maintain my belief that our goal in the Middle East should be to encourage the peaceful and stable coexistence of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.
Notice what he does with the subject in the second sentence of the sentence paragraph. It is the "fighting" that has taken lives, destroyed homes, and displaced families. All questions of agency are tossed aside. He also implies a degree of proportionality by eliminating discussion of taker/taken, destroyer/destroyed, and displacer/displaced.
He says that the goal should be "peace" and "stable coexistence." Let's see how long those goals last in the letter.
As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am working to make sure that Israel knows that it has strong support in Congress. I have co-sponsored Senate Resolution 498, and Senate Bill 462, both of which reaffirm U.S support for Israel. Israel's recent launching of Operation Protective Edge in Gaza must be quick and precise. Once they complete their mission, I hope to see diplomacy prevail, and an enduring ceasefire reached.
This displays complete ignorance of the opinion voiced in the petitions I signed and the calls that I made. I was not surprised to get a stock response, but couldn't he (or his staffers) have at least tried?
Notice as well that he does not define the purpose of "Operation Protective Edge." He does not explain to me why he supports it. He only tells me that he strongly supports Israel.
He also says that the invasion must be "quick and precise." Well, it hasn't. Israel has killed more children than it has militants. That may be Ed Markey's definition of "precise," but it certainly is not mine.
Notice as well that Markey says that diplomacy can only resume when Israel "completes" its "mission"--the mission that he never identified.
It is my strong opinion that the only path to a permanent and stable peace is the creation of two independent and viable states, living side by side in peace and security. Throughout my career in Congress I have been a vocal supporter of a two-state solution that ensures security for Israel, as well as an independent state for Palestinians.
He has a very interesting definition of "peace," as we saw in the last paragraph.
Moving forward during this critical time, I will continue to advocate for diplomacy, and I fully support U.S efforts to broker peace in the region.
But, as he noted in a prior paragraph, diplomacy should only begin when Israel "completes" its "mission," whatever that might be, however long that might take, and however many people the Israeli military kills in the process.