middleeastinfo.org/article701.html
Feith, the new Undersecretary of Policy at the United States Department of Defense, believes in good versus darkness duality. Defining Middle East conflict in his absolute terms puts serious questions whether or not someone with his views can fairly serve in his critical post asks James Zogby . Feith has been appointed Undersecretary of Policy at the United States Department of Defense DOD. This is one of the Pentagons four senior posts, charged with all matters concerning the formulation of national security and defense policy and the integration and oversight of DOD policy and plans. Additionally, among his many areas of responsibility according to the DOD, the undersecretary of policy has the responsibility to: - Develop policy on the conduct of alliances and defense relationships with foreign governments, their military establishments and international organizations;
Feith has had a long career in both government service and the private sector. During the Reagan Administration he served as the White House National Security Staff and in the Defense Department as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy. He also served as Special Counsel to Richard Perle, then Assistant Secretary of Defense. His own biography says that he specializes in technology transfer, joint ventures and foreign investment in the defense and aerospace industries. On the political front, Feith has been associated with the Cold War neo-conservative school of thought. What is of concern here is the extent to which Feith has transposed the neo-conservative worldview onto the Middle East. As his fellow cold warriors defined the world in ideological dualistic termsthe forces of absolute good confronting the forces of absolute evilFeith defines the Arab-Israeli conflict in similar terms. A prolific writer, Feith has left a long paper trail of anti-Arab tracts and diatribes against those who challenge or seek to compromise Israels strength and as he defines it, moral superiority over the Arabs. As was the case in the Cold War battle against Communism, in Feiths view, there can be no place for compromise between Israel and the Arabs. Since he defines the Middle East conflict in absolute terms, the only option for Israel is to confront its Arab enemies until they are defeated, which, in his worldview, means when they submit and accept Israels legitimacy and sovereignty over all of mandatory Palestine. Since Israel represents the good and our values, in Feiths view, it is necessary for the United States to identify with Israel in its struggle against the forces of darkness, the Arabs. This means providing Israel with superior military strength and political support. It also means that the United States should never pressure Israel either to surrender land or to compromise its hegemonic position in the region. In the late 1970s, for example, he criticized then President Jimmy Carters Camp David effort to bring about a comprehensive peacea concept he decried as false since it required Israel to weaken itself by surrendering Judea and Samaria to the Arabs.
Operating from this framework, Feith argues that the notion that the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the issue of the stateless Palestinians is a clever Arab trap designed solely to weaken Israel by threatening its relationship with the United States and its hold over Judea and Samaria. He, therefore, condemned the Carter Administration for its opposition to Israels settlement policy since, in his view, this only encouraged Arabs to believe that they could win benefits from the United States by refusing to make concessions to Israel. For Feith, Arab objections to Zionism were at the core of the conflict. Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories would not solve the conflict, only Arab acceptance of and submission to Israel would end it. In the 1980s and 90s, Feith continued his criticism of any United States policy that deviated from his view. He criticized the Bush Administration for denying Israel loan guarantees and for pressuring the Shamir government to come to the Madrid peace conference. His advice to the Bush Administration in 1991 echoed his earlier recommendations to the Carter White House. The United States government should, he suggested, require the Arabs to: - Drop the slogan of land for peace, which skeptical Israelis must suspect is a program for dismantling Israel in stages, and simply offer peace. That is, they could put forward an open, unqualified, non-grudging and sincere acknowledgement that the Jewish people are entitled to a state in a Jewish homeland;
So long as ones goal is the elimination of Israel, one does well to pretend that the Kingdom of Jordan, which occupies the other 80 percent of Mandate Palestine, is not a Palestinian state. That makes it possible to propagandize that the Jews control all the land and the Arabs of Palestine are stateless. During the Clinton years, Feith continued to oppose any agreement negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinians: Oslo, Hebron and Wye. At one point he defined Oslo as, one-sided Israeli concessions, inflated Palestinian expectations, broken Palestinian solemn understandings, Palestinian violenceand American rewards for Palestinian recalcitrance. His objection to the Hebron and Wye understandings, however, is more interesting because it was his ideological soul mate, then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had agreed to them. In 1996, Feith, together with Richard Perle wrote an advisory paper for the newly elected Likud Prime Minister. In that piece, entitled A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm, they advised Netanyahu to: make a clean break from the peace process;
Feith was, therefore, deeply disappointed when Netanyahu appeared to accept the basis of Oslo and sign two additional agreements with the Palestinians that turned more land over to them. In a lengthy piece written in 1997 A Strategy for Israel, Feith returned to his neo-conservative roots arguing that land for peace was a fabrication designed to weaken Israel. Peace would only come when Arab and specifically Palestinian society was transformed into a democratic, law-abiding and peaceful one. Since Oslo had created unrealistic expectations and rewarded bad Palestinian behavior, the only solution for Israel was to repudiate Oslo and reestablish an effective security and intelligence policy in the areas under Palestinian Authority control ie reoccupy the West Bank and Gaza. He went on to note that the price in blood would be high, but would be, a necessary form of detoxificationthe only way out of Oslos web. Despite his apparent obsession with the Arab-Israel conflict, Feith has written about a number of other Middle East-related topics. In all cases, inspired by the same pro-Israel, anti-Arab Manichean worldview. He has written condemning United States politicians for estranging themselves from Israel in order to accommodate Arab oil states. He has associated himself with a controversial strategy paper that suggested, among other options, that the United States might lead a Kuwait-style invasion and war of liberation to oust Syria from Lebanon. And he has been one of Washingtons strongest advocates supporting the Iraq Liberation Act. As disturbing as Feiths views may be, his political associations cause even greater concern. In recent years, Feith has frequently been featured in the activities of the Zionist Organization of America ZOA. Known for its virulent anti-Arab incitement, the ZOA regularly attacks all Arab American political activity and demonizes politicians who hire Arab Americans or even associate with community organizations. The ZOA also frequently attacks American Jews whom they feel are not in line with their extremist pro-Likud philosophy. In just the past few years, Feith was the Guest of Honor at ZOAs 100th Anniversary Gala Banquet. He served as Master of Ceremony at two other major ZOA functions and has been a frequent participant at ZOA sponsored policy briefings on Capitol Hill supporting that organizations anti-Palestinian legislative initiatives. Feiths law practice in Washington sheds further light on the...
|
http://csua.com/feed/