Elections in the U.S. frequently bring out the worst aspects of politicians, particularly when there is a foreign policy issue that affects a powerful ethnic or religious minority. For example, in the current conflict between Palestinians and Jews, the two leading Presidential candidates, Bush and Gore, have endorsed the Israeli government despite the fact that over 125 Palestinians have been killed and thousands have serious bullet wounds, compared to six Jewish fatalities and a few dozen others injured form flying rocks. Israeli tanks and helicopter gun ships attack civilian housing and Israeli soldiers have blocked all food and other vital supply routes, yet Gore and Bush continue their love dance with Israeli political leaders. The fundamental reason is that pro-Israeli Jews and their organizations provide millions of dollars in campaign funds (mostly to the Democrats) and have significant influence in the mass media and the White House and among opinion leaders. In other words, it is not the "Jewish vote" --barely 5% nationally and less than 20% even in New York-- but Jewish economic and political power aligned with Israel that explains why the major Presidential candidates of both parties are unwilling to condemn the Israeli massacre of Palestinians and why the mass media are so blatantly biased toward the Israeli government. On a lesser scale, a similar process takes place with regard to Cuba: both candidates compete to demonstrate who is the greatest enemy of the Cuban revolution and the closest friend of the Cuban exiles. In both, the case of Israel and the Cuban exiles, the Presidential candidates ignore strategic economic interests -- Arab oil in the Mid-East and the two billion dollar Cuban market. In other words, foreign policy is driven by well-funded internal minorities with a strangle hold on the politicians, particularly during election campaigns. Where there are no powerful economic ethnic minorities the major political candidates can ignore the concerns of their citizens. For example, many Colombians and human rights activists in the U.S. are concerned about the destructive effects of Plan Colombia and the massive U.S. military intervention. Yet neither major candidate even bothers to address the issue, except in an indirect manner to express support for the "war on drugs". Despite the fact that dozens of Colombians are assassinated every week by the military and paramilitary groups, neither Gore nor Bush express any of the outrage they express against Arafat and Castro. The Colombians and the human rights groups do not have the financial power or the media influence of the Jews and Cuban exiles. A similar example of political neglect of ethnic minorities is evident with regard to the Turkish genocide of the Armenians. The Armenian-American lobby attempted to secure Congressional recognition of the Turkish murder of two million Armenians. The White House took the lead in blocking the legislation because of Washington's strategic ties with the Turkish military. The U.S. mass media continue to put quotes around the genocide, accepting Turkish state propaganda that the Armenian genocide is a problematical issue. Any U.S. President in similar circumstances who questioned the authenticity of the Jewish Holocaust would not last five minutes in the White House and it is completely unimaginable that any mass media outlet would deny the genocide of the Jews. In other words, in the U.S. electoral campaigns powerful ethnic-religious minorities (like Jews and Cuban exiles) can determine the program and position of the major parties over and above the wishes of the rest of the voters and other interested economic actors. In the case of less economically powerful ethnic minorities like the Colombians and Armenians, the Presidential candidates base their policies on U.S. strategic economic and military interests,, that is the traditional pursuit of global or regional hegemony. Ethno-religious minorities impose a high degree of rigidity and extremism in U.S. foreign policy. In the Middle East, the Jewish lobby imposes very narrow limits on what a U.S. President can do and not do. In the first instance, Presidential candidates must pledge unconditional support and two billion dollars in aid to Israel. After those conditions are met, Washington can discuss with those Arab leaders willing to accept Washington's primary allegiance. In the Caribbean, Presidential candidates must first pledge allegiance to the Cuban exiles before they can even discuss policy toward Cuba. In Asia, where there are less powerful religious-ethnic minorities, Washington has more flexibility in defining policy. There is no significant Korean, Chinese or Vietnamese lobby comparable to the Israeli lobby to block Washington's negotiations and relations with North Korea, Vietnam or China. Two basic lessons emerge from our discussion of U.S. foreign policy. First, that U.S. foreign policy is driven by multi-national corporations and military imperatives in pursuit of global hegemony and economic markets except when it conflicts with well organized and financially powerful internal minorities who then determine U.S. policy according to their own ethno-religious agenda. Secondly, electoral campaigns among the major candidates are very vulnerable to strategic financing by well placed (in media and financial circles) ethno--religious groups, particularly when the influential minorities have a strong commitment to an overseas regime. While most U.S. voters are more concerned with domestic issues and are only marginally interested in foreign policy (except in wartime -- with U.S. casualties, the ethnic-religious minorities with their money, organization and fanatical obsession with a single "cause" can be a major force in shaping specific areas of foreign policy. The danger, of course, is that a fanatical internal minority in its one-sided support for an extremist regime, as is the case with U.S. Jewish support for Israel, can lead to a general confrontation affecting Mid-East oil, which would indeed effect the U.S. economy and living standards. And if that should happen, the pro-Israeli lobby could bring down the wrath of the U.S. public, in a way that Tel Aviv's current massacres of Palestinians does not.