The Michigan representative is being accused of antisemitism over something she never actually said.

Representative Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian American member of Congress, was attacked Monday for supposedly claiming that Michigan’s attorney general is going after pro-Palestinian protesters solely because she’s Jewish. The only problem is, Tlaib never said anything of the sort.

Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, posted on X Monday addressing Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer while alleging that Tlaib had made an antisemitic statement about Attorney General Dana Nessel. Nessel is pursuing charges against pro-Palestinian protesters at the University of Michigan, alleging some had assaulted police officers and engaged in ethnic intimidation.

The Jewish Insider article stated that Tlaib “has also claimed that Nessel is only charging the protesters because she’s Jewish.” As evidence, that article repeatedly linked to yet another article, this one from the Detroit MetroTimes—which included no quote from Tlaib referring to Nessel’s Jewishness at all.

  • sp3tr4l
    322·
    12 hours ago

    Just… taking a step back from the politics… all that…

    Imagine attempting to explain the bare basics of this to an 8 year old.

    The CEO… of the Anti Defamation League … publicly defamed a Congresswoman.

    • fubo@lemmy.world
      102·
      9 hours ago

      To expand a little more: The CEO of a Jewish anti-defamation organization used an antisemitic and pro-Nazi website to defame a Congresswoman.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
    182·
    13 hours ago

    Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League,

    You think anyone with the title “CEO” would have the intelligence to have a lawyer vet a tweet like that before going out. the ADL is going to get wrecked.

    • Botzo@lemmy.world
      8·
      10 hours ago

      Having met a number of CEOs, definitely not. They’re dollar store brains and smooth talking metaphor machines. They operate almost completely on intuition and use bullshit to back it up.

      I’m sure there are exceptions.

    • escapesamsara@lemmings.world
      92·
      12 hours ago

      The adl has more power than most senators, best case scenario is the story gets disappeared like all negative stories on the adl.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          11 hours ago

          Most likely they’ll settle out of court. Payday for Tlaib, a retraction, and there may or may not be an NDA causing it to drop out of the media.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        9 hours ago

        If I ever have kids, one of the first pieces of wisdom I’m sharing is “get a lawyer. Best you can afford.”

  • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    213·
    13 hours ago

    Could we maybe reserve the word attack for physical violence, like its supposed to be, and not just throw it around like this?

    • voracitude@lemmy.world
      5·
      11 hours ago

      You’d do well to remember that words can have multiple meanings and connotations, or you’re gonna have a bad time with English.

      Of course, if you could provide some kind of evidence that “attack” was at any point ever used to mean only physical violence and nothing else… you’d still not have a point because languages change over time and “attack” could legitimately gain new meanings that it did not used to have.

      But that’s not relevant because you won’t be able to provide that evidence, because “attack” has never been used only for physical violence and physical violence alone.