So what happened? Basically Pamela Geller was going to speak at a Jewish Community Center but then the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles canceled her appearance because of her...controversial points of view. That's it. This all happened before the article was even written. But Mr. Levin decided it would be a good jumping off point for an article.
Full disclosure time: I am atheist (though Matt is not) and so I generally side in favor of criticizing religion instead of "tolerance." And yes that applies to any religion: I think Judaism is just as silly and often intolerant as any other. But the same way we walk the line carefully between "legitimate criticism" of Israel and anti-Semitism, I enforce the same line between "legitimate criticism" of religion and anti-____________ bigotry.
That being said, I'm not going to defend Pamela Geller. People in the comment threads claim that Mr. Levin misrepresents her views, so if you are really interested in reading that then have a good time. Apparently she is Jewish, which I didn't know, but I don't see why other Jews have some kind of obligation to go after her for that reason, as the headline declares.
The trouble is that as the article goes on Mr. Levin moves away from the original story. He goes into a multiparagraph attack on Geller, which was informative but also not entirely relevant, and other practitioners of hate speech (according to his employer SPLC). I was with him until he got to this section:
"She was cited approvingly one dozen times in the 1500 page Islamophobic manifesto of accused Norway massacre killer Andres Brevick. She also has friendly ties to arguably Europe's most notorious Islamophobe, Dutch politician Gert Widlers, who stated, "the Koran is a book that calls for hatred, violence, murder, terrorism, war and submission.""I dislike Mr. Levin's first sentence here because guilt by omission is ugly. There is plenty to criticize about Geller's attitude without attempting to draw complicity with a mass murder. Did you know that Timothy McVeigh used an analogy with "Star Wars" when explaining why he bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building?
The second section I also disliked because I don't see why Wilders' (and that's how you spell it) statement was considered Islamophobic. The Koran does call for those things. So does the Bible and the Torah. Saying that is not hate speech, it is legitimate criticism of a religious document and by extension a religion. There are plenty of other things that Wilders has said that make it more deserving of that label. But I wanted to point this out to show that Mr. Levin has to be careful as well before he points the finger.
After this, though, the article returns to a pretty balanced perspective. Although his ire is mostly directed at Geller (as she is the subject) Mr. Levin also criticizes CAIR and other Muslim organizations for hosting radical speakers. Unfortunately this receives all of one paragraph, not a whole article with the title "Muslims Must Repudiate All Hatred, Especially From One of Their Own," but we can't expect miracles from the Huffington Post.
He also points out that anti-Semitism can often come disguised as criticism of Israel. Naturally that made some Huffington Posters mad:
So I guess aside from the Huffington Post's informative headline, the article wasn't bad. If it made the Israel haters unhappy, I guess that's a good start.