Regardless of whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump wins on Tuesday, U.S. support for Israel and its policies of oppression will continue, says American historian, Mark Weber in an interview with the Qods News Agency.
“That’s because both presidential candidates in this year’s bitter U.S. election campaign are entirely submissive to what Weber, director of the California-based Institute for Historical Review, calls “Jewish-Zionist power,” Weber says in an email interview the full text of which follows.
Qosdna: In your opinion, why have both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump been so supportive of Israel during this election campaign?
Weber: Whatever their disagreements on other issues, both presidential candidates are fervent supporters of Israel, and each promises that, as president, he or she will tie the United States even more closely to the Zionist state.
Donald Trump says that he is “one hundred percent for Israel,” and promises that, as president, he will increase U.S. military aid to the Jewish state. He claims that President Obama has “snubbed” Israel, even though the Obama administration, just a few weeks ago, signed an unprecedented new security agreement with Israel that will give its military $38 billion over ten years. This is the largest such agreement the U.S. has ever had with any country.
Hillary Clinton has a long record of unwavering support for Israel, including as a U.S. Senator and as Secretary of State in the Obama administration. She repeatedly promises that, as president, she will move the U.S.-Israeli relationship to the “next level,” with a new ten-year memorandum of alliance and continued guarantees of security aid.
The two politicians’ zealous support for Israel is an expression, above all, of the Jewish-Zionist grip on the U.S. mass media and American political life, and, more specifically, of the decisive role of pro-Zionist Jews in each presidential candidate’s political campaign. According to the latest disclosure of the Federal Election Commission, Jewish donors funneled more than $90 million to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump. The five largest financial backers of Clinton’s campaign are Jews, as are the two largest donors to Trump’s campaign.
Qodsna: How really important is Jewish-Zionist power in the U.S.?
Weber: As every major politician knows, Jewish-Zionist power is a central factor in the country’s political life. It’s the “big elephant in the living room” of American politics and cultural life. That’s why prominent Americans are keenly aware of the fearful consequences of defying it. Although Jews make up only two or three percent of the U.S. population, the organized Jewish community wields immense influence and power – much more than any other ethnic or religious group. Jewish-American writer Joel Stein put it succinctly in a Los Angeles Times column. “As a proud Jew,” he wrote, “I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood ... I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.”
Sometimes even high-ranking American officials acknowledge the priority of Jewish-Zionist interests in determining U.S. policy, especially in the Middle East. As Secretary of State John Kerry once put it, “Israel’s cause must be America’s cause.”
As long as this power remains entrenched, there will be no end to the systematic Jewish distortion of history and current affairs, the Jewish-Zionist domination of the U.S. political system and the American media, Israeli oppression of Palestinians, and the Zionist threat to peace.
Qodsna: How likely is either Clinton or Trump to make changes in U.S. policy that might relieve Zionist oppression of Palestinians?
Weber: Along with all other prominent American politicians, the two major presidential candidates have made very clear, time and again, their submissive loyalty to the entrenched power of the organized Jewish community. And that means that, no matter who wins on Election Day, there will not be -- and there cannot be -- any substantive shift in this country’s power alignment, and therefore no real change in basic direction or policy.