Archive | May 2008

Hamas: We are not against Jews, just against the Israeli occupation

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/bassem_naeem/2008/05/hamas_condemns_the_holocaust.html

Hamas condemns the Holocaust

We are not engaged in a religious conflict with Jews; this is a
political struggle to free ourselves from occupation and oppression

Bassem Naeem

May 12, 2008

As the Palestinian people prepare to commemorate the 60th anniversary
of the Nakba (“catastrophe”) – the dispossession and expulsion of
most of our people from our land – those remaining in Palestine face
escalating aggression, killings, imprisonment, ethnic cleansing and
siege.  But instead of support and solidarity from the western media,
we face frequent attempts to defend the indefensible or turn fire on
the Palestinians themselves.

One recent approach, which seems to be part of the wider attempt to
isolate the elected Palestinian leadership, is to portray Hamas and
the population of the Gaza strip as motivated by anti-Jewish
sentiment, rather than a hostility to Zionist occupation and
domination of our land.  A recent front page article in the
International Herald Tribune followed this line, as did an article
for Cif about an item broadcast on the al-Aqsa satellite TV channnel
about the Nazi Holocaust.

In fact, the al-Aqsa Channel is an independent media institution that
often does not express the views of the Palestinian government headed
by Ismail Haniyeh or of the Hamas movement.  The channel regularly
gives Palestinians of different convictions the chance to express
views that are not shared by the Palestinian government or the Hamas
movement.  In the case of the opinion expressed on al-Aqsa TV by Amin
Dabbur, it is his alone and he is solely responsible for it.

It is rather surprising to us that so little attention, if any, is
given by the western media to what is regularly broadcast or written
in the Israeli media by politicians and writers demanding the total
uprooting or “transfer” of the Palestinian people from their land.

The Israeli media and pro-Israel western press are full of views that
deny or seek to excuse well-established facts of history including
the Nakba of 1948 and the massacres perpetrated then by the Haganah,
the Irgun and LEHI with the objective of forcing a mass dispossession
of the Palestinians.

But it should be made clear that neither Hamas nor the Palestinian
government in Gaza denies the Nazi Holocaust.  The Holocaust was not
only a crime against humanity but one of the most abhorrent crimes in
modern history.  We condemn it as we condemn every abuse of humanity
and all forms of discrimination on the basis of religion, race,
gender or nationality.

And at the same time as we unreservedly condemn the crimes
perpetrated by the Nazis against the Jews of Europe, we categorically
reject the exploitation of the Holocaust by the Zionists to justify
their crimes and harness international acceptance of the campaign of
ethnic cleansing and subjection they have been waging against us – to
the point where in February the Israeli deputy defence minister Matan
Vilnai threatened the people of Gaza with a “holocaust”.

Within 24 hours, 61 Palestinians – more than half of them civilians
and a quarter children – were killed in a series of air raids.
Meanwhile, a horrible crime against humanity continues to be
perpetrated against the people of Gaza: the two-year-old siege
imposed after Hamas won the legislative elections in January 2006,
which is causing great suffering.  Due to severe shortages of
medicines and food, scores of Palestinians have lost their lives.

It cannot be right that Europeans in general and the British in
particular maintain a virtual silence toward what the Zionists are
doing to the Palestinians, let alone supporting or justifying their
oppressive policies, under the pretext of showing sympathy for the
victims of the Holocaust.

The Palestinian people aspire to freedom, independence and peaceful
coexistence with all their neighbours.  There are, today, more than
six million Palestinian refugees.  No less than 700,000 Palestinians
have been detained at least once by the Israeli occupation
authorities since 1967.  Hundreds of thousands have so far been
killed or wounded.  Little concern seems to be caused by all of this
or by the erection of an apartheid wall that swallows more than 20%
of the West Bank land or the heavily armed colonies that devour
Palestinian land in a blatant violation of international law.

The plight of our people is not the product of a religious conflict
between us and the Jews in Palestine or anywhere else: the aims and
positions of today’s Hamas have been repeatedly spelled out by its
leadership, for example in Hamas’s 2006 programme for government.
The conflict is of a purely political nature: it is between a people
who have come under occupation and an oppressive occupying power.

Our right to resistance against occupation is recognised by all
conventions and religious traditions.  The Jews are for us the people
of a sacred book who suffered persecution in European lands.
Whenever they sought refuge, Muslim and Arab lands provided them with
safe havens.  It was in our midst that they enjoyed peace and
prosperity; many of them held leading positions in Muslim countries.

After almost a century of Zionist colonial and racist oppression,
some Palestinians find it hard to imagine that some of their
oppressors are the sons and daughters of those who were themselves
oppressed and massacred.

Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust but find themselves
punished for someone else’s crime.  But we are well aware and warmly
welcome the outspoken support for Palestinian rights by Israeli and
Jewish human rights activists in Palestine and around the world.

We hope that journalists in the west will begin to adopt a more
objective approach when covering events in Palestine.  The
Palestinian people are being killed by Israel’s machine of
destruction on a daily basis.  Nevertheless, we still see a clear
bias in favour of Israel in the western media.

The Europeans bear a direct responsibility for what is befalling the
Palestinians today.  Britain was the mandate authority that handed
over Palestine to Israeli occupation.  Nazi Germany perpetrated the
most heinous crimes against Jews, forcing the survivors to migrate to
Palestine in pursuit of safety.  We, therefore, expect the Europeans
to atone for their historic crimes by restoring some balance to the
inhuman and one-sided international response to the tragedy of our
people.

Bassem Naeem is the minister of health and information in the
Hamas-led Palestinian administration in Gaza.

Teacher fired for refusing to sign loyalty oath

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-oath2-2008may02,0,6280956.story

Teacher fired for refusing to sign loyalty oath

Cal State system ousts another instructor who objects on religious
grounds to a pledge adopted by California in 1952 to root out
communists.

By Richard C. Paddock
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

May 2, 2008

When Wendy Gonaver was offered a job teaching American studies at Cal
State Fullerton this academic year, she was pleased to be headed back
to the classroom to talk about one of her favorite themes: protecting
constitutional freedoms.

But the day before class was scheduled to begin, her appointment as a
lecturer abruptly ended over just the kind of issue that might have
figured in her course. She lost the job because she did not sign a
loyalty oath swearing to “defend” the U.S. and California
constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

The loyalty oath was added to the state Constitution by voters in
1952 to root out communists in public jobs. Now, 16 years after the
collapse of the Soviet Union, its main effect is to weed out
religious believers, particularly Quakers and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

As a Quaker from Pennsylvania and a lifelong pacifist, Gonaver
objected to the California oath as an infringement of her rights of
free speech and religious freedom. She offered to sign the pledge if
she could attach a brief statement expressing her views, a practice
allowed by other state institutions. But Cal State Fullerton rejected
her statement and insisted that she sign the oath if she wanted the
job.

“I wanted it on record that I am a pacifist,” said Gonaver, 38. “I
was really upset. I didn’t expect to be fired. I was so shocked that
I had to do this.”

California State University officials say they were simply following
the law and did not discriminate against Gonaver because all
employees are required to sign the oath. Clara Potes-Fellow, a Cal
State spokeswoman, said the university does not permit employees to
submit personal statements with the oath.

“The position of the university is that her entire added material was
against the law,” Potes-Fellow said.

In February, another Cal State instructor, Quaker math teacher
Marianne Kearney-Brown, was fired because she inserted the word
“nonviolently” when she signed the oath. She was quickly rehired
after her case attracted media attention.

It is hard to know how many would-be workers decline to sign the
pledge over religious or political issues. Some object because they
interpret the pledge as a commitment to take up arms. Others have
trouble swearing an oath to something other than their God.

Public agencies do not appear to keep a record of people denied
employment over the oath. Union grievances and lawsuits are rare.

Some agencies take the oath more seriously than others. Certain
school districts and community colleges have been known to let
employees change the wording of the oath when they sign or to ignore
the requirement altogether. Others, including the University of
California, advise employees on how they can register their
objections yet still sign the pledge.

All state, city, county, public school, community college and public
university employees — about 2.3 million people — are covered by
the law, although noncitizens are not required to sign.

UC Berkeley was the first to impose a tough anti-communist loyalty
oath in 1949 and fired 31 professors who refused to sign.

After a version of the oath was added to the state Constitution,
courts eventually struck down its harshest elements but let stand the
requirement of defending the constitutions. In one court test,
personal statements accompanying the oath were deemed constitutional
as long as they did not nullify the meaning of the oath.

Now, the University of California advises new employees who balk at
signing the pledge that they can submit an addendum, as long as it
does not negate the oath.

UC even provides sample declarations, such as: “This is not a promise
to take up arms in contravention of my religious beliefs,” or “I owe
allegiance to Jehovah.”

The California State University system takes a firmer approach.

Kearney-Brown, the math instructor fired by Cal State East Bay, said
she added the word “nonviolently” just as she had when taking
previous jobs as a high school teacher. The university, however, told
her she could not alter the pledge.

After her case attracted media attention and help from the United
Auto Workers, which represents some Cal State employees, the
university reversed course. The office of Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown
drafted a statement declaring that the oath does not commit employees
to bear arms in the country’s defense. Cal State agreed to let
Kearney-Brown attach it to her oath and she was reinstated.

Kearney-Brown said she believed she was defending the Constitution by
objecting to the oath and argued that signing a pledge should not be
reduced to a meaningless formality.

“The way it’s laid out, a noncitizen member of Al Qaeda could work
for the university, but not a citizen Quaker,” she said.

The 23-campus Cal State system has fired instructors over the oath at
least twice before.

In 2001, Cal StateDominguez Hills dismissed geography lecturer
Alejandro Alonso after he refused to sign. He said at the time that
he identified with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and that swearing an oath
to anyone but God violated his religious beliefs.

When his request for a religious exemption was denied, he proposed
signing the oath and attaching a personal statement. That also was
denied. Alonso, who went on to teach at USC, has become an expert on
Los Angeles gangs and runs the website http://www.streetgangs.com.

In 1995, Methodist minister Bud Tillinghast was teaching a course on
comparative religion at Humboldt State University, when he was pulled
out of class by campus police and fired because he had not signed the
oath.

Tillinghast said he believed that swearing an oath to the state
helped establish the government as a religion.

“I was teaching world religions and I ran up against a state
religion,” the retired minister recalled. “My concern was that this
was breaking down the separation of church and state and making the
state a religion you swear allegiance to.”

He filed suit against Cal State for reinstatement arguing that the
oath violated the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But
after a court found that law unconstitutional, his suit was thrown
out.

In all, Tillinghast said, he went up against the loyalty oath three
times. Before being fired by Humboldt, he taught a religion class at
a community college for nearly a decade. For that job, the school
allowed him to sign an alternate oath.

Last year, he was named to the Humbolt County Human Rights
Commission. A potential problem was averted when officials decided he
didn’t need to sign the oath.

Efforts to remove the oath from the state Constitution have been
unsuccessful, although the matter came under scrutiny in 1998 when a
congressional subcommittee held a hearing on religious freedom.

Among those who testified was Zari Wigfall, a Jehovah’s Witness who
said she twice lost jobs at Sacramento City College in 1994 because
of the oath, first as a student tour guide and later as a theater
house manager for a children’s play.

“Citizens are entitled to certain rights, and also minorities,
including religious minorities, are given certain guarantees,” she
told the committee. “And I just didn’t think that . . . because of my
religious beliefs I would have two jobs taken away from me.”

She is now a dancer, choreographer and teacher in Southern California.

For Gonaver, the oath came up unexpectedly.

She was offered the job at Fullerton teaching two classes last fall,
Introduction to American Studies and Introduction to Intercultural
Women’s Studies. She received two appointment letters and signed a
contract. When she attended an orientation session for new faculty,
she heard of the oath for the first time.

After researching the issue and learning that UC allowed its
employees to provide personal statements, she submitted her own
six-sentence declaration to Fullerton.

In her statement, she wrote that the oath violates the 1st Amendment
and discriminates against religious pacifists, such as Quakers and
Buddhists. She called the pledge an “instrument of intimidation.” And
she wrote that employees who sign it “while harboring legitimate
religious and political objections” could be exposed to a charge of
perjury.

Margaret Atwell, the Fullerton school’s associate vice president for
academic affairs, replied in an e-mail that Gonaver was not allowed
to submit any statement, no matter what the practice at UC. Gonaver
would have to sign the oath or lose the job, Atwell said.

Gonaver refused.

Potes-Fellow, the Cal State spokeswoman, said the university stands
by its stricter interpretation of the requirement and is not affected
by how UC or other public institutions handle the oath.

“The university concluded that state law did not allow her to attach
her addendum,” Potes-Fellow said.

The attorney general’s statement that Kearney-Brown was allowed to
attach her oath did not violate Cal State’s policy because it was not
an addendum, Potes-Fellow said. “We think the circumstances are
different in both cases,” she said.

Gonaver said the attorney general’s statement does not go far enough
in answering her objections to the oath. But if she had been offered
a chance to use it last fall, she said, she probably would have
signed the oath and would have been teaching all year at Fullerton.

Now, she would like to see the oath eliminated for all public
employees except those who deal with sensitive information. She also
would like an apology and a job next year.

“It makes no sense that they do this to people,” she said. “It’s
people who take it seriously who don’t get hired.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,220 other followers