In the eyes of many Americans, the Middle East has shown itself to be a horrendous Pandora's box of one major catastrophe following another. The Arab-Israeli conflict has plagued the area for decades with no end in sight, Iran's political upheaval in the 20th century gave American presidents and diplomats migraines, ulcers and embarrassments, and just when we say it can't get any worse in Iraq, it does.

Toss in democracy-disseminating America's cozy oil-based relationship with Saudi Arabia, along with political assassinations and a recent debilitating war in Lebanon, and overall, the Middle East starts to look like a diplomatic hellhole.

And yet, to give credit where credit is due, concerned American political thinkers are trying to do something about it, or are at least expressing a desire to learn what they should do. Unfortunately, they may not be listening to all the right people.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee recently held a hearing titled "Next Steps in [the] Israeli-Palestinian Process" in an effort to shed light on the long-standing conflict. Among those invited to share their knowledge were David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, former U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk of the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution, and most notably, outspoken author on the Middle East Daniel Pipes.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) also recently presented a discussion called "Reaching Arab Audiences" with prominent New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.

What do all of the above men have in common, or conversely, what do they all lack? They were chosen to speak on the subject of Middle East politics and society for their opinions on the subject and to address America's political representatives with the hope that they may inspire them with their thoughts, but not a single one of those men is a Middle Easterner.

It is by no means a necessity that someone be of a specific cultural background in order to discuss issues pertaining to a particular part of the world, but diversity of viewpoints and backgrounds in these dialogues is always a positive element that adds breadth and, in a lot of cases, credibility. In the cases of the House hearing and the CSIS discussion, some interesting personalities were chosen to speak on the subjects of Middle East politics and communicating with Arab audiences.

For the House hearing, one of the speakers, Pipes, is head of the organization Campus Watch, which monitors U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and targets scholars who criticize it, especially those academics who criticize U.S. foreign policy towards Israel. The organization's purpose is essentially to publish blacklists of academics to be wary of.

Pipes has been quoted as saying, among other things, that "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene ... All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most." Somehow, academic censorship and xenophobia do not seem like the right strategies to be pursuing in the attempt to establish good diplomatic relations in the Middle East.

Widely read New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman was asked to speak at CSIS about how to best communicate with Arab audiences. In a recently published column of his, Friedman mused about how this may best be done. He writes, "If you can't explain something to Middle Easterners with a conspiracy theory, then don't try to explain it at all — they won't believe it," and, "the most oft-used expression by moderate Arab pols is: 'We were just about to stand up to the bad guys when you stupid Americans did that stupid thing. Had you stupid Americans not done that stupid thing, we would have stood up, but now it's too late. It's all your fault for being so stupid.'"

Since Friedman's own ineloquent conclusion appears to be that he is a miserable failure when it comes to communicating with Middle Easterners, he seems to be the least appropriate person to advise on how to best do so.

America's political leaders have inundated themselves with a lot of information on the Middle East, but unfortunately, very little of it is coming from the source. There are many eloquent, educated and highly influential Middle Eastern academics and leaders that could be providing valuable advice, but they have not been given adequate opportunity to present it. If America wants to make a positive change in the Middle East, it had better start listening to its voices.

Reach columnist Hanady Kader at hanadykader@thedaily.washington.edu.