The swing state where Democrats fear Gaza vote the most

Now, these charges aren’t frivolous; they help make the campus a livable community. Israel is neither genocidal nor an apartheid regime. Not all of the accused are students. All were charged for unlawful actions. And insinuating Nessel isn’t respecting the Constitution is a fundamental attack on her legal work.

In an interview published by a Detroit outlet the next day, Tlaib questioned Nessel’s professionalism and impartiality: “We’ve had the right to dissent, the right to protest . . . We’ve done it for climate, the immigrant rights movement, for Black lives, and even around issues of injustice among water shutoffs. 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.”

Accusing a Jewish law enforcement official of applying the law differently when Israel is the subject of protest and running a biased organisation is a shot across the bow.

Nessel subsequently used a controversial political cartoon of a pager exploding on Tlaib’s desk – that appeared in a magazine last week – as a hook. Denouncing it as “Islamophobic and wrong”, Nessel added, “just as Rashida should not use my religion to imply I cannot perform my job fairly as Attorney General. It’s antisemitic and wrong.”

Nessel was right to defend herself, but things took a turn two days later. On Sunday, CNN host Jake Tapper asked Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer whether Tlaib’s charge “that Nessel’s office was biased was antisemitic”. Whitmer offered a non-response.

Tapper then asked whether Whitmer agreed with Tlaib’s accusation that, in his paraphrasing, “Nessel is not doing her job” and “Nessel’s only doing it because she’s Jewish, and the protesters are not”. Whitmer replied, “I’m not going to get in the middle of this argument that they’re having.” Whitmer’s comment wasn’t neutral, though. It hurt Nessel.

Someone clearly recognised that Whitmer’s response was damaging, because a spokesperson issued a statement Sunday afternoon, belatedly affirming Nessel’s professionalism. However, that statement didn’t condemn antisemitism alone, directly reject the accusations against Nessel or name Nessel’s accuser.

Presumably that statement alarmed people important to Whitmer, because on Monday afternoon, Tapper posted a new statement from Whitmer on X: “The suggestion that Attorney General Nessel would make charging decisions based on her religion as opposed to the rule of law is antisemitic… .” The statement finally addressed the central problem but still avoided naming the source of this media storm. Regardless, the far-left is now furious at both Tapper and Whitmer for criticising Tlaib.

This episode is illuminating. Whitmer, a possible future Democratic presidential nominee, must worry it’s politically costly to antagonise Tlaib. But Whitmer’s unwillingness to immediately and strongly support Nessel left her — and other Jews — vulnerable to further attacks.