Phil Giraldi noted a few days ago that the House Foreign Affairs Committee was inviting Israeli ambassador Michael Oren as their sole witness to brief the House, in a closed session, on the strategic implications of the recent Gaza war. On Thursday the committee has scheduled hearings on “Israel’s Right to Defend Itself: Implications for Regional Security and U.S. Interests.” The invited witnesses are Elliott Abrams, Danielle Pletka, and Robert Satloff — all neoconservatives, all staunch backers of Netanyahu, the Iraq war, etc. The committee doesn’t even pretend that there might be other worthwhile perspectives, surprising since U.S. interests are meant to be the subject matter. I asked a congressional aide whether there was anything to be done about this, and was told, “No, witnesses are decided by committee chairman and ranking members” and that “the system is irreparably broken.”
I wonder about the “irreparably.” My source makes it sound rather like what one used to hear during the sixties, when old racist committee chairmen would keep civil rights legislation bottled up indefinitely, and there was nothing anyone could do about it. And yet, that system was changed somehow. For starters, what would happen if other members of the committee just began speaking up — saying, wait a second, aren’t there any other views out there, perhaps of people who have some knowledge and record of actually dealing with the countries and peoples of the Mid East, and not from the other end of a bombsight? Just asking.
By the way, members of the committee are listed here.
cka2nd 
Philip Giraldi 
Sweet Caroline 
Gerard 
Bay of Pigs II 
Josh Levy 
For starters, what would happen if other members of the committee just began speaking up
They would be removed from the committee. They would not get as much funding for their reelection campaigns from donors in New York, LA, South Florida, and so forth. Or, said donors would fund primary opponents (that’s how, e.g., Artur Davis got into Congress). They would be denounced as anti-Semites in the media, and forced to resign or decline reelection.
BTW, looking at that the committee membership, I see not one person, other than retiring Ron Paul, who has shown any independence on Israel. It’s not as if the junior members are chafing under the unwanted yoke of their superiors. On the Republican side, there are a number of religious Zionists (or, at least, who represent Bible Belt districts); on the Democratic side, most of those listed are either themselves Jewish and/or represent districts with significant Jewish populations. And let’s not forget who funds both our political parties, even if (especially if?) you are a candidate from Podunkville.
Things will not change in Congress unless and until there are more votes and/or money to be lost in kowtowing to Israel than to be gained — just like anything else in politics. Just like, come to think of it, the civil rights movement.