The problem for her defenders is that the congresswoman’s antisemitic insinuations reached an audience that wasn’t supposed to hear them.
Rashida Tlaib could not have been clearer when she denounced her fellow Michigan Democrat, Attorney General Dana Nessel, for charging eleven University of Michigan students over their refusal to abide by police orders to vacate a campus encampment in May.
“This is a move that’s going to set a precedent, and it’s unfortunate that a Democrat made that move,” Representative Tlaib told the Detroit MetroTimes. “You would expect that from a Republican, but not a Democrat, and it’s really unfortunate.”
The uncharitable implication in Tlaib’s remarks is that we should expect to see elected law-enforcement officials defer to their political interests when they are compelled to prosecute their co-partisans. I should hope we would see Republicans apply the law blindly and neutrally. It’s a sad testament that Tlaib expects her fellow Democrats to be more discriminatory.
Somehow, these remarks went relatively unnoticed. What set off a scandal was Tlaib’s suggestion that Nessel is enforcing the law in this case only in observance of her own creedal hatred for the Palestinian cause.
“We’ve had the right to dissent, the right to protest,” Tlaib continued. “But it seems that the attorney general decided if the issue was Palestine, she was going to treat it differently, and that alone speaks volumes about possible biases within the agency she runs.”
Nessel objected to the allegation that her personal commitments render her incapable of applying the law fairly — an instance of psychological projection if ever there was one — writing that Tlaib “should not use my religion to imply I cannot perform my job fairly as Attorney General.” But not everyone appeared to agree with Nessel. Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer was conspicuously flaky when asked to address the controversy over Tlaib’s remarks until her neutrality became untenable.
“The suggestion that Attorney General Nessel would make charging decisions based on her religion as opposed to the rule of law is antisemitic,” Whitmer said in a belated statement. Whitmer has since been joined by 21 House Democrats, including three Michigan representatives (one of whom is running for U.S. Senate), all of whom back Nessel against Tlaib’s baseless accusation of prejudice.
The Democrats calling Tlaib out were induced to do so by the attention the congresswoman’s comments eventually received from national media outlets, CNN in particular. “Antisemitism is everywhere, and it comes from both ends of the political spectrum,” said anchor Dana Bash. She made a point to highlight Jake Tapper’s recent interview with Whitmer in which the governor tried to avoid having to express an opinion on the matter. “You’ve got to call it out no matter where it comes from,” Bash later added.
This all seems rather cut-and-dried. But in the far-left fever swamps, a new narrative has emerged. Tlaib has been smeared. Her perfectly ambiguous remarks are being spun into something they’re not. It’s all part of a broader plot to tarnish the good names of the Americans waving Hamas and Hezbollah flags on college campuses and in city streets, vandalizing property, physically attacking Democratic bases of operation, and disrupting the lives of average Americans for the better part of a year — all in service of their anti-Israel monomania.
“CNN hosts Jake Tapper and Dana Bash have performed a masterclass in journalistic malpractice,” The Intercept’s Natasha Lennard alleged, “better described in this case as ‘lying.’” How? By supposedly performing tortured exegesis on her remarks to divine a kind of antisemitism from them that no rational observer would otherwise intuit. “Tlaib’s accusation of anti-Palestinian bias, which is institutionally rampant nationwide,” Lennard continued, “was immediately twisted by Nessel into an alleged antisemitic attack.” In her telling, this nefarious fabrication served as the basis for a “smear campaign” in which Tapper and Bash — both of whom are Jewish themselves — took part.
In sum, per the new narrative: Tlaib did not in any way allege that her state’s Jewish AG was perpetuating systemic anti-Palestinian bias, which is everywhere and must be propagated by someone. Moreover, those perpetuating that rumor should themselves be suspected of anti-Palestinian biases — and all of them just happen to be, by sheer coincidence, Jews.
Lennard wasn’t alone. The Detroit MetroTimes “included no quote from Tlaib referring to Nessel’s Jewishness at all,” the New Republic’s either deliberately obtuse or authentically dense Edith Olmsted insisted. “A closer look reveals that Tlaib’s statement was not about Nessel being Jewish but about systemic anti-Palestinian bigotry.” The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Council went so far as to demand a retraction and an apology from CNN. Its anchors had participated in “a defamatory smear campaign against” Tlaib, “fabricating quotes,” “inciting hate and vitriol,” and retailing a “fake story.”
The imminently ignorable tantrum from the fringes of American discourse somehow had its intended effect. Bash eventually broadcast a “clarification,” which consisted of reading Tlaib’s full remarks and conceding that the congresswoman had not specifically referenced “Nessel’s Jewish identity.” Native English speakers could not fail to home in on the not particularly subtle implication in Tlaib’s remarks, but CNN apparently felt that their hysterical critics had to be satisfied.
The Anti-Defamation League’s Jonathan Greenblatt went further. “I learned that initial news reports contained an error in the specifics of the congresswoman’s remarks,” he confessed. What was the error? Greenblatt did not say — perhaps because there were none.
The problem Tlaib’s defenders have with this news cycle is that the congresswoman’s bigoted remarks reached an audience that was never supposed to hear them. The “error” Tlaib’s critics have made is to be honest about their interpretation of her comments, and her protectors are attempting to intimidate those who are inclined toward honesty into submission and silence.
So we’re confronted with an intimidation tactic layered atop another intimidation tactic. If there is a silver lining here, it is that the instigator of this fracas and her defenders don’t have the courage to take ownership of the antisemitic insinuation they are promulgating. Accusing Jews of secretly pulling the levers of power to prosecute their clannish grievances and benefit their own tribe is still just a little too gauche to say in mixed company.
At least, it is for now.