U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawai'i, yesterday criticized nationally syndicated Washington Post columnist George F. Will for an essay that assailed the push for federal recognition of Native Hawaiians, calling it "absolutely outrageous" that Will would compare the movement to Nazism and the persecution of the Jews.

"It is disgusting that George Will would write a commentary about the quest of Native Hawaiians for the opportunity to manage their own resources based on so many complete misunderstandings and falsehoods about the situation in Hawai'i," Akaka told The Advertiser.

In the column "Social Engineers In Paradise" that appeared yesterday on www.washingtonpost.com as well as other newspaper Web sites, Will equates the Akaka bill to Nazism and calls it "a mockery of the Pledge of Allegiance."

Will likened a panel that would be formed to determine who is Native Hawaiian to Hermann Goering, Hitler's second-in-command in Nazi Germany, who was convicted of war crimes in Nuremberg and sentenced to death. "Goering's role would be played by a panel empowered to decide who is a 'Native Hawaiian' and entitled to special privileges and immunities," Will wrote.

Akaka said, "It is absolutely outrageous that he would compare this quest for justice to the horrors perpetuated by the Nazis on the Jews and other vulnerable people in Europe before and during World War II."

The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, nicknamed the Akaka bill in honor of its chief sponsor, creates a political process that could lead to federal recognition of a government entity that would represent Native Hawaiians.

The bill passed out of the House in October and is awaiting a vote in the Senate.

Will wrote that the bill "would foment racial disharmony by creating a permanent caste entitled to its own government — the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity — within the United States."

Will pointed to the Rice v. Cayetano case in which the U.S. Supreme Court forced the state to open up OHA elections to all voters and not just Hawaiians. "This ruling raised doubts about the constitutionality of the racial spoils system administered by that agency, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs," he wrote.

Will also said in the column that "unlike Indians ... Native Hawaiians' land was not taken by force."

Haunani Apoliona, chairwoman of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, called the article "shameful" and took exception to Will's comment about the overthrow.

"Mr. Will clearly lacks an understanding of our history (and) to suggest that 'Native Hawaiians' land was not taken by force' ignores the facts," Apoliona said. "Further, it ignores the fact that thousands of Hawaiians signed a petition opposing the annexation of Hawai'i to the United States. "

Akaka agreed. "Mr. Will alters history to claim the overthrow was peaceful and 'Native Hawaiian land was not taken by force,' which is plainly untrue and ignores the involvement of armed U.S. agents."

Apoliona also said it was wrong for Will to compare a Native Hawaiian government to Nazism.

"The issue is whether Hawaiian is a political or racial class," Apoliona said. "We are indigenous. No different than American Indians and Alaska Natives. To draw comparisons to Nazism is irresponsible.

"American Indians and Alaska Natives would be offended by this, and so are we."

H. William Burgess, an attorney for several parties who have mounted challenges against OHA and other Hawaiian programs, applauded Will's column.

"It's quite well done," Burgess said. "I think it's quite significant because it shows the national media are starting to pay close attention to the Akaka bill. They're starting to look at it and see the flaws and dangers of the Akaka bill."

Burgess said it was fair for Will to equate the Akaka bill to Nazism. "It's somebody using race as a reason to do horrendous things, so it's certainly an accurate comparison in that respect," he said. "I mean, do the critics of what (Will) said really believe the Akaka bill doesn't represent a government that is based on race?"

Burgess also backed Will's comment that Native Hawaiian lands were not taken away. "Whose land was taken by force? Certainly, the overthrow did not deprive anybody of any lands," Burgess aid. "The monarchy didn't own the land, it held the lands for the subjects of the kingdom, and the new government continued to hold the lands for the people of Hawai'i. Not a square inch of land was stolen. It didn't affect private titles at all."

Supporters of the Akaka bill see federal recognition as a first step in rectifying the wrongs inflicted on Native Hawaiians when U.S. citizens helped with the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. In 1993, Congress and President Clinton issued an apology for the U.S. government's role. Supporters also believe federal recognition is needed to stave off legal challenges that have been mounted against Hawaiians-only programs established by the federal and state governments, programs they also believe are needed to rectify the impacts of the overthrow.

Opponents, however, oppose the bill on the grounds that it and Hawaiians-only programs discriminate against non-Hawaiians. They argue that resources that should be distributed among all Hawai'i residents are being unfairly given only to Hawaiians.

Also opposed to the Akaka bill and federal recognition are those who believe much more is needed to address wrongs against Hawaiians. Some of those opponents believe Hawai'i should be restored as a nation wholly independent of the U.S.

Reach Gordon Y.K. Pang at gpang@honoluluadvertiser.com.