In his April 12 column, New York Times contributor Ezra Klein defended Hasan Piker and accepted him into the Democratic Party. Piker is a popular influencer with over three million followers on the platform, Twitch, and over 1.85 million on YouTube. He is also a self-described anti-imperialist Marxist who has spread extremist, antisemitic and anti-Israel vitriol.
For example, Piker said that the U.S. “deserved 9/11;” that if someone cares about Medicare or Medicaid fraud, they should kill U.S. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL); that his favorite flag is Hezbollah’s flag; and that a liberal Zionist is like a “liberal Nazi.” Piker also compared Israelis to the KKK and argued that Hamas is “a thousand times better” than Israel. Additionally, Piker said that it “doesn’t matter” to him if Hamas raped Israelis on Oct. 7, 2023.
Klein’s column proved controversial, prompting considerable online debate. Weeks after its publication, Klein’s column is still garnering attention, including at two long time Jewish news outlet which cited and echoed Klein’s controversial views. The Jewish Daily Forward published an opinion piece that, like Klein, also called for Piker’s normalization and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) interviewed the streamer, mentioning Klein’s column. Given this response, Klein’s column is worth revisiting and analyzing some of the ways in which he defends Piker as well as his motivation for writing such a column in the first place.
As part of a not-so-coherent discussion of several issues, Klein’s column touches on questions of Zionism and anti-Zionism. These terms should be defined. Zionism is a movement for Jewish self-determination in Israel – Jews’ ancestral homeland. Anti-Zionism often denies Jews’ historical connection to the land and rejects their right for self-determination. As is frequently said, including by Jewish organizations, criticism of the Israeli government or Israeli policies is not antisemitic, nor does it necessarily express anti-Zionist sentiments. However, anti-Zionism becomes antisemitic when it turns into a worldview that rejects Israel’s right to exist, demonizes and delegitimizes Israel and its supporters, or when it draws on well-known antisemitic tropes.
One of the main ways in which Klein tries to defend Piker is by drawing a distinction between antisemitism and anti-Zionism: Klein claims that he does not agree with some of Piker’s statements, but Piker is not an antisemite, just an anti-Zionist. Klein cites examples of cases when Piker denounced antisemitism and supported Jewish politicians such as Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Jon Ossoff (D-GA).
Klein does not understand the issues about which he writes. The rhetorical denunciation of antisemitism while simultaneously vilifying Zionism and tokenizing some Jews is a well-known tactic that can be traced to the Soviets. The Soviets too claimed they are not antisemites but only anti-Zionist. But as scholar Izabella Tabarosky pointed out: “wherever and whenever they [the Soviets] employed anti-Zionism for their political purposes, antisemitism blossomed.”
The Soviets’ campaign against Zionism was global, and made its impact in the West, where it shaped Marxist thought and activist movements. This Soviet tactic of hiding behind “anti-Zionism” to spread antisemitism is still practiced today. In its interview with Piker, JTA suggested that one of Piker’s core beliefs is that “Israel is a malign presence in the world and for the United States in particular.” This form of vilification of Israel – evident in the words “malign presence” – puts Piker dangerously close to antisemitism.
Piker’s anti-Zionism is a severe problem not only for Jews and Israelis, but also for non-Jews as it implies that any speck of sympathy towards Israel is illegitimate and should be purged. Piker said that “in a totally just world” anyone who “ever exhibited any sort of positive feelings about the State of Israel” should be treated like a “rabid neo-Nazi” and should not be allowed to even fill the position of “the local dog catcher.” He then added: “I’m so serious about this.”
And yet, a recent Harvard-Harris poll of registered voters from April found that 74 percent of respondents support Israel over Hamas. Insofar as that surveys point at larger social trends, we can say that for Piker, most Americans should be barred from holding any position of import just because of their view on this issue.
Taken together, the history of anti-Zionism and Piker’s views show that Klein’s defense of him is invalid.