Juan Cole writes on the subject of Douglas Feith:

Having a Likudnik as the number three man in the Pentagon is a nightmare for American national security, since Feith could never be trusted to put US interests over those of Ariel Sharon.

What is that supposed to mean?

If Cole is using the term "Likudnik" in its plain meaning - someone who supports Israel's conservative Likud party, irrespective of ethnicity - his statement makes zero sense. Can supporters of Kofi Annan be trusted to put US interests above UN interests? Articles praising (and criticizing) various Iraqi politicians and parties appear regularly in the US press; can we trust those who have repeatedly praised an Iraqi party to put US interests above Iraq's interests? This is plainly ridiculous. Does Cole have any actual evidence of Feith's treasonous intent, besides Feith's ethnicity (Feith is Jewish) and conservative views?

On the other hand, Likudnik has come to mean roughly roughly "right-wing Jew" in popular discourse (though there are many people who use it for its plain meaning). If Cole is using it in this sense, he is just recyclicing old anti-semitic myths.