Tuesday, October 06, 2020
Elder of Ziyon
At The Intercept, Murtaza Hussain writes about "pro-Israel blacklists", in an article that blames the Canary Mission for being behind a pro-Israel "cancel culture."
He talks with people who have profiles in the Canary Mission archives and how upset they are about it.
But buried deep within the article, he makes an admission about the Canary Mission:
Nothing on Awad’s profile, which includes accusations of supporting the Palestinian-led movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel and “demonizing Israel,” indicates that she has ever engaged in illegal activity or even espoused views that could be considered violent, extremist, or anti-Semitic. (The same holds for the several other people The Intercept spoke to for this story who had Canary Mission profiles.) Yet the site uses an astounding guilt-by-association logic that attempts to tie her to international terrorist groups.
In other words, there is nothing inaccurate about Canary Mission profiles. At all.
Sumaya Awad's profile accurately notes that she is a BDS supporter, a speaker for the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights BDS group, a founder of a local Students for Justice in Palestine chapter, A supporter for Hamas-led violent protests on the Gaza border, and that she spreads hatred for Israel. None of that is in dispute.
It does not label her as antisemitic, but it does note that SJP speakers often are. It doesn't label her as a terrorist but it notes that SJP members and speakers often support terror. This isn't "astounding guilt by association" - it is an accurate representation of the organization she chooses to be a prominent member of, and there is no difference in noting her association with it than noting that someone is a member of the KKK even if they themselves did nothing racist.
The more serious charge is that people misuse Canary Mission profiles. I've seen such reports, and I don't know how accurate they are. But that isn't Canary Mission's fault. It finds out public information and organizes it, nothing more.
Which means that it provides a service.
In the case of Awad, she is worried that the Canary Mission profile might affect her attempt to become a US citizen. Yet the article provides zero evidence that such a thing has ever happened or can happen. Instead, it points to a case of a person who was interviewed by the FBI, possibly partially because of his Canary Mission profile, yet he had explicitly expressed support for Hamas numerous times on social media which is the real issue, not a "blacklist."
Canary Mission shines a light on what people say and do. Anyone who reads their profiles cannot argue with that. Instead, its critics use scary words like "blacklist."
I can imagine that it feels uncomfortable to see that when one's name is Googled the first thing that comes up is a Canary Mission profile. But it is using public information and it is accurately describing what people have done or said. If that is problematic for some, then perhaps they should think twice before openly expressing support for US-sanctioned terror groups online.
