The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

Muslim-Basher Geller Dropped from Jewish Speaking Engagement

By Hatewatch Staff on June 25, 2012 - 2:57 pm, Posted in Anti-Muslim

The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles canceled a lecture it was going to host by Pam Geller (who is Jewish) just hours before it was supposed to be delivered Sunday morning. The Western Region Chapter of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), was sponsoring Geller’s speech, “Islamic Jew Hatred as the Root

Cause of Failure to Achieve Peace.”

The ZOA is a Jewish advocacy organization that claims more than 30,000 members and bills itself as the oldest pro-Israel group in America, involving itself in educating people about the “truth of the ongoing and relentless Arab war against Israel” and fighting things like “Arab propaganda” on campuses.

An interfaith coalition of Jewish, Islamic and Christian groups had expressed outrage on Saturday that the Federation was going to allow Geller to speak. “We are extremely shocked and alarmed to see a mainstream Jewish organization associating itself with one of the nation’s leading Islamophobes,” the coalition said in a prepared statement.

Geller fired back on her Atlas Shrugs blog, calling out the “Islamic supremacist Jew-haters of Hamas-CAIR” and making references to the Holocaust: “Jewish leadership is on the trains and thinks we will go quietly.” She wrote that though the Federation canceled the event, the ZOA organized a protest within a half-hour of the cancellation, where she was able to give her speech. The ZOA released a statement, posted on Geller’s blog, in which it claimed that the Federation “succumbed to political pressure by Muslim and Left-wing Jewish groups not to let a rational voice of criticism of Islam and its war against Israel be heard on its premises.”

Rational voice?

Geller, executive director of Stop Islamization of America, has ridden anti-Muslim hysteria – most notably her opposition to an Islamic center proposed for Lower Manhattan – to national and international prominence. She has promulgated some of the more bizarre conspiracy theories about Islam and President Obama on her website, including birtherism and claims that Obama is the love child of Malcolm X, that he was once involved with a “crack whore,” and that he is beholden to his “Islamic overlords.”

Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik, the anti-Muslim mass murderer who slaughtered 77 of his countrymen, mostly teens, last July, cited Geller’s writings in his political manifesto. In response to media scrutiny, Geller seemed to justify his attack on a Labour Party summer youth camp by claiming the camp was part of an anti-Israel indoctrination training center and the victims would have grown up to become leaders of Norway who would then flood the country with Muslims who refuse to assimilate, commit violence and live on the dole.

  • Reynardine

    Ian, your exsartaginations provide us with endless entertainment.

  • Ian

    “As for intentionalist versus functionalist [...] I am in the former camp”

    I’m sure Hilberg would have been thrilled to have such a mature intellectual giant on his side.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    “Ruslan,

    The NA were very pro-Hitler.”

    Doesn’t matter. In their own documents(the NA handbook), they said that while they drew a lot of inspiration from National Socialist Germany, they were not a National Socialist or “Nazi” organization. Therefore, by your bizarre logic, it would be wrong to call them a neo-Nazi organization.

    “I said “The possibility that the Nazi plan for their treatment of the ‘Jewish Question’ allegedly changed – A VIEW THAT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING AS WIDELY AGREED UPON BY HISTORIANS AS YOU APPARENTLY THINK – does not change the point.”

    I’m sorry but you’re wrong, the functionalist argument won the debate, and as I said, the Nazis planned to expel or exterminate large groups of other people as well. And this doesn’t change the point, which is that a person need not advocate the exact same thing as Nazis to be likened to Nazis.

    “You were acting like the funcionalist/intentionalist debate did not exist, not me. You, a non-historian, were the one presenting one side of that debate as indisputable fact, not me.”

    You are also a non-historian, and if I was acting like the functionalist-intentionalist debate didn’t exist, then WHY did I tell you to look up ‘functionalist-intentionalist DEBATE?’

    “But again, even if the functionalist position were indisputably true, it’s beside the point we’re talking about.”

    Not really, since you seem to imply that if Geller doesn’t advocate the mass extermination of Muslims, she can’t be compared to Nazis.

    Look Ian, we all know you. You don’t like Muslims. You hold many of the same prejudices as Geller. Perhaps Geller’s insanity is a little distasteful to you, especially given her links to the far-right, but for whatever reason you don’t like people connecting Islamophobia with Nazism because to some extent you agree with the former. You’re saying a lot more than you think.

  • Gregory

    Ian,
    Stop digging. The hole is deep enough already. Word to the wise, from someone who has no interest in this particular discussion.

  • Reynardine

    Ian, “barebacking” refers to condomless sex, and only one partner need be male. Only “Sodom” is associated with homosexuality, and that only by a mistaken (or deliberately artful) construction of what is supposed to have happened in that city. The rest is a pun…you know, a joke? Oligophrenics don’t get jokes. And if Ruslan ever should experience intellectual insecurity, it won’t be on your account.

    As for intentionalist versus functionalist, though I am in the former camp, I do not think Hitler’s “intent” was limited to Jews at all.

  • Ian

    Erika, don’t pretend to be naive. Every reading this knows damn well what s/he meant by “barebacking” and “Gommorah”, i.e. Sodom and.

    Ruslan,

    The NA were very pro-Hitler.

    I said “The possibility that the Nazi plan for their treatment of the ‘Jewish Question’ allegedly changed – A VIEW THAT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING AS WIDELY AGREED UPON BY HISTORIANS AS YOU APPARENTLY THINK – does not change the point.”

    Emphasis added.

    You were acting like the funcionalist/intentionalist debate did not exist, not me. You, a non-historian, were the one presenting one side of that debate as indisputable fact, not me.

    But again, even if the functionalist position were indisputably true, it’s beside the point we’re talking about.

    Unless the point is your intellectual insecurity.

  • Reynardine

    Well, Erika, it sure looks that way. You’re right, don’t swim in water where human hammerheads have been spawning.

  • Erika

    Wait, is Ian saying that heterosexual people do not have veneral diseases?

    You know Reynardine, I’m thinking that swimming with hammerhead sharks is definitely much safer than being around human hammerheads

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    ” Basically, my argument is that someone should not call someone a Nazi unless they are a national socialist. It’s a practice held by all decent people and I thought it was more self-evident than it apparently is.”

    No, this is an idiotic idea which makes no sense. For one thing, I’m not calling her a Nazi, I was merely comparing her rhetoric to that of the Nazis. While the term is often over-used today, it doesn’t mean that it should only be used when someone overtly claims to be a “National Socialist.” There are plenty of other movements which deny being “Nazis” while clearly adhering to their ideology. The National Alliance was a perfect example.

    “Yes, the Nazis did think they were going to kill all Jews around the world. No, it was not realistic. But then again, Nazis aren’t really known for being realistic, are they?”

    You have to tell me how you managed to read the minds of so many dead people at once.

    “The possibility that the Nazi plan for their treatment of the “Jewish Question” allegedly changed – a view that is not even close to being as widely agreed upon by historians as you apparently think – does not change the point. The point was the Jews were targeted for total extinction, thus giving the term “Nazi” a particular power when used against a Jew. Whether this attempted extinction was started in 1933 or 1941 is a bit beside the point, don’t you think?”

    Actually you’re wrong. Look up the “Functionalist vs. intentionalist debate” on the Holocaust.

  • Reynardine

    Gomorrahcoccus, Ian. Bareback riding can give it to you. Normally, penicillin cures it.

  • Ian

    “[T]elling you bareback riding can give you Gomorrah isn’t a threat unless we’re talking about causing your infection ourselves.”

  • Reynardine

    Aron, don’t utter the name of that corpse-defiler, please.

  • http://Twitter.com/AronL Aron

    I’m going to stand with Rey here. Ian, there was no ‘anti-gay rant.’ Just as there was no ‘threat.’

    There is, however, a ‘concern troll.’ And his name is Ian. And he managed to derail the thread just as handily as Funinsnow.

  • Reynardine

    *What* anti-gay rant? Someone has leapt over the tree of wisdom and landed in a puddle on the other side.

  • Ian

    It’s genuinely sad to see Reynardine’s bizarre anti-gay rant was has not been unequivocally condemned. It seems many leftists on this site abandon our principals when it’s slightly inconvenient.

    I don’t have to try to claim Ruslan’s summation of my point is a straw man. It’s clear to any unbiased person of average English skills. Basically, my argument is that someone should not call someone a Nazi unless they are a national socialist. It’s a practice held by all decent people and I thought it was more self-evident than it apparently is.

    Yes, the Nazis did think they were going to kill all Jews around the world. No, it was not realistic. But then again, Nazis aren’t really known for being realistic, are they?

    The possibility that the Nazi plan for their treatment of the “Jewish Question” allegedly changed – a view that is not even close to being as widely agreed upon by historians as you apparently think – does not change the point. The point was the Jews were targeted for total extinction, thus giving the term “Nazi” a particular power when used against a Jew. Whether this attempted extinction was started in 1933 or 1941 is a bit beside the point, don’t you think?

    And “what groups say this?” A quick trip through the Intelligence Files would do everyone some good.

  • Reynardine

    Why, Erika, a Hammerhead is someone who repeatedly uses his own thick head as a hammer, thus damaging his own (tiny) brain, as well as those of anyone else he can actually hit.

    I myself have a professional admiration for sharks, though many years out of the business. A hammerhead shark, though, has better sense than to use its head in the way human Hammerheads do. Maybe that’s because its brain is larger.

  • Ian

    I find you bizarrely facinating. Please, continue.