Piker’s Opposition to Zionism is Indefensible
Why the arguments of Hasan Piker and Ezra Klein rely on double standards that distort history, misjudge Israel, and abandon intellectual consistency.
This essay challenges Ezra Klein’s defense of Hasan Piker and his assertion that anti-Zionism is distinct from antisemitism. It argues their analysis of Zionism and Israel overlooks critical historical context, applies inconsistent standards, and underestimates the security realities facing the Jewish state. Since antisemitism should be defined as a state of mind or approach to the world both Piker and Klein (who is Jewish) can be considered antisemitic
Introduction
Ezra Klein’s latest column is a defense of Hasan Piker as a credible participant in democratic discourse and a broader assertion that anti-Zionism should not be conflated with antisemitism. He argues that Piker could be the Democrats’ Joe Rogan. Hasan Piker is no Joe Rogan.
Klein rejects the characterization of Piker as a “Jew hater,” acknowledging his offensive and objectionable remarks while arguing that such a label oversimplifies and distorts his views. Instead, Klein presents Piker as an anti-Zionist whose rhetoric reflects a growing ideological current within segments of the progressive movement. He underscores Piker’s denunciations of antisemitism and support for Jewish political figures as evidence that criticism of Israel does not inherently equate to hostility toward Jews.
Comment One: On Klein’s Claim That Anti-Zionism Is Not Antisemitism
Ezra Klein argues that anti-Zionism is not inherently antisemitic—a claim that is both defensible and incomplete. In practice, anti-Zionism often crosses into antisemitism, particularly when it targets Jewish individuals, targets any Jew or non-Jew who supports Israel, applies double standards to Israel, or denies Jews the same right to national self-determination afforded to other peoples.
A clear example of this troubling convergence has emerged on American college campuses. When Jewish students—whether Zionist or not—are harassed, intimidated, or excluded because of their perceived support for Israel, the line between political criticism and religious or ethnic discrimination is crossed. Such incidents constitute antisemitism, not legitimate political dissent. Reports of harassment, exclusion from student organizations, vandalism, and threats directed at Jewish students have been widely documented in recent years.
These concerns have also been substantiated through legal action and federal investigations. Numerous lawsuits and Title VI complaints have alleged antisemitic discrimination on campuses. Prominent examples include:
Harvard University: Students Against Antisemitism v. Harvard (2024), alleging that the university failed to protect Jewish students from harassment and discrimination.
Columbia University: Lawsuits and federal scrutiny accusing the institution of permitting a hostile environment for Jewish students amid campus protests.
New York University: A federal lawsuit alleging intimidation and exclusion of Jewish students tied to anti-Zionist activism.
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA): Legal action following allegations that Jewish students were denied equal access to campus spaces unless they disavowed Zionism.
Congressional hearings and investigations by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights have further underscored concerns about antisemitism in higher education.
Another warning sign arises when criticism of Israel is applied selectively. When Israel is singled out for condemnation while comparable or more severe actions by other nations are ignored, anti-Zionism risks devolving into antisemitism through the application of a double standard. This principle is reflected in widely cited frameworks such as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism.
This concern also raises questions about consistency among prominent anti-Zionist commentators. Hasan Piker, for example, has stated that he opposes ethnonationalist states but to the best of my knowledge he has not spoken out against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Comment Two: On Hasan Piker’s Record and Credibility as a Foreign Policy Commentator
Ezra Klein’s attempt to legitimize Hasan Piker as a participant in mainstream political discourse requires a broader assessment of his record.
Perhaps the most notorious example is Hasan Piker’s statement that “America deserved 9/11,” which he later framed as a critique of U.S. foreign policy but which nonetheless trivialized a mass-casualty attack. This remark, along with criticism of his comments on Uyghur persecution in China, rhetoric perceived as sympathetic toward Hezbollah, his comparison of liberal Zionists to Nazis, and inconsistencies in his opposition to ethnonationalist states, raises serious questions about his judgment and credibility as a foreign policy commentator.
Comment Three: On Klein’s Historical Framing of Israel and the Peace Process
Ezra Klein’s critique of Israel rests on an interpretation of recent events that omits critical historical context. His analysis risks portraying Israel’s current position as the product of unilateral choices rather than the cumulative result of decades of failed negotiations, rejected compromises, and persistent security threats.
· Israel has repeatedly pursued territorial compromise in exchange for peace, including the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, the Camp David negotiations in 2000, and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s far-reaching proposal in 2008.
· Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza did not produce stability; instead, Hamas seized control and launched repeated attacks against Israeli civilians, reinforcing fears that a similar withdrawal from the West Bank could endanger Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
· Critiques of Israel’s conduct in Gaza often overlook the strategic risks of legitimizing Hamas, an organization openly committed to Israel’s destruction and historically resistant to durable negotiations.
· While the humanitarian tragedy in Lebanon is undeniable, Hezbollah’s sustained aggression rendered northern Israel effectively uninhabitable for years, forcing mass evacuations and underscoring Israel’s security challenges.
Klein’s lack of historical perspective presents an incomplete account of why Israel is where it is today.
Comment Four: On Klein’s Assertion That Piker Cannot Be Antisemitic Because He Supports Jewish Critics of Israel
Klein suggests that Hasan Piker cannot be antisemitic because he supports Jewish critics of Israel. This reasoning is insufficient. Supporting Jewish individuals who share one’s political views does not preclude antisemitism.
My definition of antisemitism includes two key tests:
The Application of a Double Standard to Israel.
The Failure to Vigorously Oppose Hostility Toward Jews Who Refuse to Denounce Israel.
Historical references are sometimes invoked to justify criticism of Israel, including disputes between the United States and Israel during the Reagan administration in the 1980s. Senator Jon Ossoff has cited this period to suggest precedent for conditioning U.S. arms transfers to Israel. However, this interpretation overlooks critical context. While temporary restrictions were imposed, President Reagan ultimately reaffirmed the U.S.–Israel alliance following escalating instability, including the 1983 bombing of U.S. Marines in Beirut. Using this episode to justify contemporary arms embargoes misreads history. I doubt that Ossoff, a generally well prepared Senator, would make this type of claim with regard to a country that was not Israel.
Recent controversies on American college campuses further illustrate the importance of moral clarity. Instances in which chants widely interpreted as calling for violence against Jews were defended as free speech sparked national debate.
The failure of prominent Jewish leaders within the Democratic Party to vigorously lead the fight against antisemitism has been deeply troubling to many observers. In contrast, Representative Elise Stefanik’s high-profile congressional questioning of university presidents brought national attention to the issue and underscored the urgency of institutional accountability.
Ultimately, supporting Jewish critics of Israel does not, by itself, negate the possibility of antisemitism.
Comment Five: Conclusion
Op-eds like Ezra Klein’s—and there are many like them—leave me deeply saddened. They reflect not only a disagreement over policy but also a troubling shift in priorities.
First, the essay appears more concerned with positioning the Democratic Party for electoral success in 2028 than with achieving lasting peace in the Middle East. This recalls an old political joke: “We believe in the two-state solution—Michigan and Pennsylvania.”
Second, a Democratic administration shaped by the worldview Klein advances would risk destabilizing the region. Policies perceived as distancing the United States from Israel could embolden Hamas, Hezbollah, and other extremist actors while pushing Israel further to the right, undermining prospects for peace.
Third, sustained public pressure on Israel by the Biden administration and other Western governments risked emboldening Hamas by signaling divisions within the Western alliance. Following the October 7 attacks, Israel was unwilling—and strategically constrained—to negotiate with an organization responsible for mass atrocities while it continued to hold hostages. Indeed, external pressure to engage in negotiations or accept large-scale prisoner exchanges involving convicted terrorists risked creating dangerous incentives, potentially encouraging further hostage-taking and additional acts of terrorism. A more sustainable path forward would focus on disarming terrorist groups and deploying credible international or regional peacekeeping forces, with the Arab League playing a central role. Op-eds that overlook these strategic realities risk advancing policies that inadvertently incentivize extremism rather than stability.
Fourth, such arguments reinforce a perception—both in Israel and among key Arab allies—that American support is unreliable. This perception resonates in capitals such as Abu Dhabi and Riyadh, where leaders in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia increasingly view regional stability as dependent on consistent U.S. leadership.
Ultimately, durable progress in the Middle East requires historical perspective, moral clarity, and strategic realism. Essays that overlook these complexities do little to advance peace. That is why op-eds like Klein’s are not merely unpersuasive—they are disheartening.
Authors Note: I am doing a lot of work on health care most recently on the impacts of the failure to renew the enhanced ACA premium tax credit. My most recent work on this topic is this assessment of a WSJ editorial stating that the new policy was not disruptive. See my article The ACA is Not Stable: A Rebuttal to the Wall Street Journal.
Most of the material at www.economicmemos.com is free. I would very much appreciate all readers who take out the free or paid subscription, your choice of course.
This coupon gives you 20 percent off and the right to renew at $48 as long as you maintain the subscription.
· Subscribe now to lock in 20% off—just $48 per year.
· Early supporters secure a discounted annual rate that continues at renewal.
· This limited-time offer allows founding subscribers to keep the reduced price as long as their subscription remains active.