Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who is Jewish, was being honored at a gathering of the Michigan Democratic Jewish Caucus on Sunday when she reportedly urged Jewish voters, according to Jewish Insider, to put aside concerns about their safety “in exchange for the opportunity to save the rest of humanity.” 

“We have a moral imperative to place the needs of the world above even our own self-interest and, yes, even our own survival,” she also reportedly said.

Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel speaks at a campaign rally held by U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) on October 16, 2022 in East Lansing, Mich.

Say what?

Nessel’s remarks were made in the context of the controversy over the vocally anti-Israel Democratic nominee for Senate in Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed, whom many Jewish Democrats oppose — and whom Nessel has not endorsed, at least not yet. I am less concerned about the specific case of El-Sayed, who appears to be making efforts to repair his fractured relationship with Michigan’s Jewish community, than I am with the essence of Nessel’s remarks.

It’s bad enough that American Jews are forced to navigate a gauntlet between ever-increasing anti-Israelism on the far left (read: Democratic Socialists of America) and equally pernicious antisemitic figures on the far right (Tucker Carson, Candice Owens, Nick Fuentes, et al.) But even harsh critics of the Netanyahu government, such as New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Rep. Alexandria Occasio-Cortez (D-NY) are committed to protecting Jews against antisemitism.

“It should not be hard to shut down hatred and antisemitism where we see it,” AOC declared following a pro-Palestinian rally on Oct. 8, 2023. 

“The bigotry and callousness expressed in Times Square on Sunday were unacceptable and harmful in this devastating moment,” she added. “It also did not speak for the thousands of New Yorkers who are capable of rejecting both Hamas’ horrifying attacks against innocent civilians as well as the grave injustices and violence Palestinians face under occupation.” 

And Mamdani has been equally outspoken in condemning antisemitic manifestations in New York City. Earlier this year, after a rabbi had been physically attacked in Queens, I commended him for publicly emphasizing that “antisemitism is not a thing of the past — it is a present danger that demands action from all of us. There is no place for antisemitism in our city. I stand in solidarity with Jewish New Yorkers and my administration is committed to rooting out this hatred.” 

And now, a Jewish Democratic politician — a state attorney general, no less — is telling her Jewish constituents that they should be prepared to sacrifice their safety and their survival for some sort of “common good”?

In her speech, again according to the Jewish Insider report, Nessel suggested emulating the biblical Queen Esther to “sacrifice the comfort, safety and security and even the very future of our own people in exchange for the opportunity to save the rest of humanity.” Except, of course, it would appear that Nessel did not pay attention in her religious school classes at West Bloomfield’s Temple Kol Ami, since Esther did no such thing. What Esther did was risk the displeasure of her husband King Ahasuerus (the Persian king Xerxes I) and possibly her own life in order to ensure the survival of her people — that is, the Jewish People. Nessel’s analogy is, to be kind, entirely off base.

So is her curious attempt to link support for Israel with environmental causes. “What good is defending the historic homeland of our ancestors and demanding that candidates acknowledge its right to exist,” she asked, “if the planet upon which it rests is no longer inhabitable?” This is a non-sequitur to end all non sequiturs, and it makes no sense in the present-day political climate.

Is Nessel suggesting that we should ever turn a blind eye to any threats to Jewish safety? Tell that to a parent whose child has antisemitic curses hurled at them on their way home from school. And how would doing so in any way constitute “a moral imperative to place the needs of the world above even our own self-interest and, yes, even our own survival”? Again, her argument, in addition to being offensive, makes no sense.

Let’s be clear: Jewish safety is not and can never be negotiable or sacrificed for any reason. Jewish survival even less so.

Moreover, this is not and should not be a Jewish issue. No group’s safety and no people’s survival should ever be turned into a pragmatic political bargaining chip. Can you imagine the outrage if anyone suggested that Black survival, or Muslim survival, or any other group’s survival, should be put at risk? 

Nessel’s remarks constitute a new low in contemporary political discourse. Simply put, it is ludicrous for anyone, let alone a state attorney general, to state categorically that anything, including “the needs of the world,” should ever be placed above Jewish survival.

Nessel represents the very state from which Henry Ford notoriously spread his antisemitic venom in the 1920s through his Dearborn Independent. Before she opens her mouth again, it would behoove her to watch Gaylen Ross’ superb documentary, “Sapiro v. Ford: The Jew Who Sued Henry Ford,” which chronicles how this particular brand of antisemitism endangered American Jews and targeted Jewish survival. In the 1930s, America Firsters such as Michigan native Charles Lindbergh and Detroit-area priest Father Charles Coughlin wanted Jews to keep silent about the persecution of Jews in Germany because they felt that Stalin was a greater threat than Hitler. We know how that turned out.

I write as a Democrat who has never voted for a Republican in a national or statewide election. This is not about partisan politics. Nor is it about endorsing or voting for El-Sayed. That is between Nessel and her conscience, and between her and Michigan voters.

I write because, at a time of surging antisemitism, including antisemitic violence, there can be no excuse for anyone suggesting even obliquely that any threats to Jewish safety or to Jewish survival should ever be condoned or, in Nessel’s case, actually justified.

It is incumbent on every last one of us, regardless of our respective political affiliations and views, to publicly and unequivocally repudiate Nessel’s reprehensible remarks. 

Menachem Z. Rosensaft is visiting professor of the practice at Cornell Law School and lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School. He is the author, most recently, of Burning Psalms: Confronting Adonai after Auschwitz.