Israel is almost immune from criticism on Capitol Hill. This is remarkable because Congress deals with many contentious issues. On abortion, arms control, affirmative action, gay rights, environment, trade, health care, immigration, welfare there is almost always lively debate. But where Israel is concerned potential critics fall silent. There is hardly any debate at all.

The absence of serious deliberation was revealed in a hearing on Israeli-Palestinian peace process. It was held on February 14, 2007 by Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia in House of Representatives. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was trying to restart the moribund peace process. The subcommittee sought testimony from three witnesses.

All three are central players in the lobby. Martin Indyk was former AIPAC official and former US ambassador to Israel. He now heads Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings Institution. David Makovsky is from pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Daniel Pipes is neoconservative pundit who directs right-wing Middle East Forum.

No critic of Israel was brought in. No Palestinian or Arab American was brought in to offer alternative views or suggest United States take different approach.

M. J. Rosenberg once worked for AIPAC. He is now key figure with Israel Policy Forum, a moderate pro-Israel group that actively supports two-state solution. He summed up situation: “This was a hearing about two sides of a conflict where only one side was allowed to speak.” He added that “everyone who saw an official Congressional hearing that banned the Arab point of view was either hurt by the spectacle or angered by it. And that damages the interests of America, and of Israel.”

Source: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy