'Ready for the Backlash?' Hasan Piker Talks Hamas, anti-Zionism and Why Americans Are Fed Up With Israel
"Are you ready for the backlash you're going to receive?" Hasan Piker asks jokingly at the start of our video interview.
This is the first time that Piker, an anti-Zionist Twitch streamer who has become a boogeyman for many in the Jewish-American world, speaks to the Israeli media. At 35, Piker boasts over 3 million subscribers to his livestreams mixing left-wing politics, news commentary and internet culture, and frequently draws controversy over his rhetoric on Israel, Hamas and U.S. foreign policy.
Being the enfant terrible of the online left would not, on its own, merit an interview. But Piker, a former producer and host at The Young Turks (founded by his uncle Cenk Uygur), has become an increasingly influential figure on the U.S. progressive left thanks to his marathonic livestreams. He has hosted Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna on his stream and interviewed Zohran Mamdani during the New York mayoral race as well as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Over the past election cycle, he has also become a campaign surrogate, rallying for anti-Zionist progressives Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier, who won their New York primaries, and Francesca Hong, who narrowly lost the Democratic primary for Wisconsin governor.
His influence was particularly evident in Michigan, where his support for Abdul El-Sayed drew criticism from the Jewish establishment. El-Sayed's victory, after pro-Israel groups spent heavily to defeat him, suggested that Israel will remain a defining issue in Democratic primaries through the midterms and, Piker believes, into the 2028 presidential race.
"I hope your readership and your viewers understand this. The overwhelming majority of Americans – and it's not just a generational thing at this point – are no longer fond of Israel."
Piker is anathema to much of the Jewish establishment for his uncompromising anti-Zionism and offensive rhetoric. Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt has accused him of "virulent antisemitism," while El-Sayed's association with Piker led prominent Michigan Jews to urge the Democratic-leaning community to vote for his Republican rival. Since our interview, Piker has caught flak again – including from El-Sayed – for saying that Jewish Americans' attachment to Israel can invite violence.
But Piker says much of the outrage against him stems from misunderstanding – some of it by "professional misunderstanders" – and from the nature of streaming eight hours a day, leaving behind more than 21,000 hours of live video since 2018. Though he has apologized for some remarks – including calling ultra-Orthodox Jews "inbred" and saying America "deserved" the September 11 attacks – he doubled down on others, including his claim that Hamas is "a thousand times better" than Israel and his frequent comparisons of Zionism to Nazism, liberal Zionists included. The United Kingdom denied him entry, saying his presence "may not be conducive to the public good," and the University of Washington recently canceled a planned talk.
With his growing political influence, what might once have been dismissed as the provocations of a popular streamer carries greater weight. His channel is where viewers may encounter, for the first time, terms like "anti-Zionism" and "settler colonialism," challenges to Israel's "right to exist," and a degree of understanding for Palestinian militancy – including the October 7 attacks, in which about 1,200 Israelis were killed and 250 taken hostages – that grates on the ear for a large portion of American Jews.
His rhetoric and growing influence come as American attitudes toward Israel – particularly among younger Democrats – have shifted dramatically since October 7 and the war in Gaza. Piker sits at the leading edge of that shift: not simply calling for an end to the war or Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, but rejecting the idea of a Jewish state altogether.
"I hope your readership and your viewers understand this," Piker says near the beginning of our conversation, a week after El-Sayed's victory in the Michigan primary, speaking to me from his home studio in Los Angeles.
"The overwhelming majority of Americans – and it's not just a generational thing at this point – are no longer fond of Israel. They're not. Most Americans now see Israel as a country that has demanded endless amounts of money and munitions and has slaughtered tens of thousands of children with our munitions and demands not only unlimited fealty but also gets frustrated at Americans for even speaking out of turn about this sort of thing and demands deplatforming and cancelations and firings on U.S. soil. And I think that is a big part of the reason why most Americans don't really like Israel any longer."
Piker, dressed in a suit and tie – his uniform since his rise to prominence in Democratic Party politics – was polite and opinionated during our conversation, omitting the expletives that usually pepper his stream-of-thought monologues. At times it was difficult to reconcile this earnest man – conversant in everything from revisionist Zionism and theories of settler colonialism to Bezalel Smotrich, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Marwan Barghouti and the imminent Israeli election – with the shock-jock who said that in a totally just world, "any kind of fucking Zionist tendency should be treated in the same way as being a fucking rabid neo-Nazi ... you shouldn't even let someone be the fucking local dog catcher ... if they've ever exhibited any sort of ... positive feelings about the state of Israel."
Politeness aside, Piker doesn't tone down his politics. When confronted with some of his most provocative lines – that "Hamas is a thousand times better than Israel," and that he'd "vote for Hamas over Israel every single time" – Piker doesn't budge.
"I have no way of voting for Hamas, and neither do Palestinians at this current juncture," Piker says. "This is more a thought experiment that's supposed to force Americans into thinking about where the lesser evil is, or who is responsible for far greater amounts of damage.
"I've condemned October 7, I've talked about the crimes that took place. I've talked about the heinous violence we saw unfold, as did everyone else," he says. "I see it as an unfortunate and tragic consequence of 75 years of apartheid and occupation, where desperate people are leaning into unfathomable acts of violence as a final way to try to remind people that they're there and to make the occupation as costly as possible."
Piker says the media and what he calls "the Hasbara apparatus" present Americans with a false view. "That's the last element of the defense of the Israeli narrative: the idea that these are barbaric, monstrous hordes animated purely by the type of antisemitism that Westerners understand, not dissimilar to what the Nazis did, not dissimilar to neo-Nazis here in the United States of America, and it's not. I want Americans to really think: 'What would you do in that situation?'"
When does that cross the line from analysis to support?
"What I support is international law. Despite the excesses, despite the war crimes, international law has always been very clear that occupied people have a right to militant resistance, whether in the West Bank or Gaza."
On a material level, Palestinians are in much worse shape, especially in Gaza. What did Hamas achieve on October 7? Do you think it was a mistake?
"Well, look, I'm an American, right? I'm an American citizen. I have no control over how occupied people resist their occupation. I do have, at least theoretically, some control over the Israeli side, because Israel is not only our ally, but we fund Israel's offense. My goal is not to go back and forth on what [Hamas leader] Yahya Sinwar's ultimate plan was or whether it was successful, but to look at what has happened and try to stop the bleeding."
"To me this is the equivalent of talking about Nat Turner's Rebellion, right? Which was brutal," Piker says, referring to the 1831 slave revolt in Virginia, in which dozens of White men, women and children were killed before the uprising was crushed by local militias. "It would be considered a blip in the totality of the systematic enforcement of chattel slavery, the raping, the death and destruction, and the enslavement of an entire people. I think that is probably how people will look back [on October 7] when enough time has passed, some of these wounds have healed, and hopefully the occupation has ended."
Piker argues Americans should focus on the Israeli violence their government can influence. But his own growing influence also raises a question about the politics he is helping shape. Does a left that centers "resistance" and Hamas make it harder for other Palestinian alternatives to gain attention?
The American left has emphasized revolutionary language and centered resistance. But there are Palestinian alternatives. There was the two-state summit at the UN, backed by Saudi Arabia and France, which the U.S. rejected. There's Marwan Barghouti [a Palestinian leader who was convicted of masterminding deadly attacks during the Second Intifada and has since become a unifying national symbol for Palestinians]. There's the Palestinian Authority. Do you think the American left, by centering armed resistance and Hamas, sidelines potential actors that can not only stop the bleeding but actually advance the Palestinian cause?
"I like Marwan Barghouti, obviously, but even then, therein lies this double standard, this asymmetry of violence, right? The 'Palestinian Nelson Mandela,' Marwan Barghouti – he's being tortured every day in an Israeli prison right now.
"So a path toward a peaceful negotiation, a long-term solution, is not so much in the hands of the American left, which is only recently becoming a more prominent force in American politics. It's certainly in the hands of the Israeli government, as the colonial occupier.
"If there's one spoiler in the possible peaceful solution, whether it be a two-state solution, a one-state solution, whatever that looks like, it's always been the Israeli government and its lack of interest in dealing with the Palestinian sovereignty question in a decent manner."
Piker sees Israel as the result of a settler colonial endeavor, which began with the Nakba and continued into a sustained occupation. I asked him if this means he believes Israeli Jews should pack up and leave.
"Well, I'm an American, right? I don't think that we should purge ourselves. I live here. I love this country. I don't think that the solution to offering restitution for the indigenous massacres is to have 320 million Americans just go somewhere else. So, of course, I have a very similar perspective on where we go from here in Israel. It would be ridiculous otherwise."
Piker wants the American government to pressure Israel, including through sanctions.
"I'm invested in making sure that there is real political pressure applied to Israel, not lip service to the masses in the United States," Piker says. "Without that, I don't think Israel is going to stop."
He imagines a "multi-front pressure operation, whether it be boycott, divestments and demanding sanctions... which is controversial from the perspective of many living in Israel, and certainly amongst American Jews, even American Jews critical of Israel."
Piker believes there is "a lot of appetite by Americans to do this," and that only then will we see "Israeli society coming to a reckoning moment, to a realization that Israel has become a social pariah, and it's not necessarily because of the nascent antisemitism growing and exploding in its severity, but because of what Israel has done in Gaza."
Naming and Shaming
You've done 20,000 hours of streaming. You've said some outlandish stuff. You've said some stupid stuff. Do you think the format rewards immediacy, provocation and hyperbole?
"The format rewards it," Piker agrees, though he argues that his remarks are routinely stripped of context by what he calls "professional misunderstanders." He points to a 2018 joke about the Great Replacement Theory, in which he said immigrants were coming to replace white Americans "with their salsa hips." Elon Musk later circulated the clip as evidence that Piker sincerely believed in replacing white people.
"This format that I occupy is very dynamic, and there's always back-and-forth discourse in it," Piker says. "There are going to be instances where tensions are high, where I'm joking or utilizing an analogy that people will take sincerely."
But not all of the controversy can be attributed to clips taken out of context. Piker frequently compares Zionism to Nazism on his streams. In a 2025 interview with Rashida Tlaib, Piker said: "When people say 'I'm a liberal Zionist,' it's like saying you're a liberal Nazi. You want an Aryan majority ethnostate."
Piker says he draws a sharp distinction between Judaism and Zionism. But for American Jews, the relationship between the two – and even the meaning of "Zionist" itself – is far less settled. A recent survey by the Jewish Federations of North America found that while only 37 percent identify as Zionists, more than two-thirds said they feel emotionally connected to Israel, and 60 percent said Israel made them proud to be Jewish. The embrace or rejection of the "Zionist" label can obscure a more complex spectrum of beliefs about Israel and Jewish identity.
That makes the consequences of his language part of the question, not merely whether his critique of Israel is right or wrong. The comparison also raises a problem that becomes less abstract when applied to actual liberal Zionists. If Zionism is inherently fascist and "exterminationist," as Piker argues, what does that make Jews who identify with Israel while opposing its occupation and much of its conduct in Gaza?
"This is why Haaretz readers don't like me," Piker jokes when I mention his interview with Tlaib.
I'm sure there are other reasons, too. But take Brad Lander. He's Jewish and a self-described liberal Zionist, but he's also pushing to block bomb sales and sanction settlers in the West Bank. How does that sit with your comparison?
"Regardless of my understanding of Zionism as a racist ideology, as a fascist ideology, one that revolves around ethno-religious supremacy and is exterminationist both in ideology and in action, I still think there is an opportunity to change people's minds. That's always been my goal."
"Brad Lander is a great example," Piker says. "The way Brad communicates about these issues is very thoughtful. It's very empathetic to the Palestinian plight, and that's, I think, part of the reason why they've smeared him heinously. They've even questioned his Judaism. But ultimately, I find Brad Lander to be a reliable person that I can lean into because as long as he openly states that Israel is an occupation and he is going to seek out solutions to end that occupation, we are directionally on the same side."
There have been many liberal Zionists, going back to the beginning of the occupation, Israeli, American and otherwise, who have had basically the same worldview as you, right? That the occupation needs to end. Calling it exterminationist and supremacist from the beginning—
"No, I do. I do believe it was exterminationist and supremacist from the beginning," Piker says. "I guess my perspective is that it was an experiment inevitably going to reach this maximalist conclusion."
"I think the warning was always there because the violence was always there," he says, pointing to the activities of the pre-state organizations like Lehi and Irgun and to the 1948 massacre at Deir Yassin. "The driving principle behind it was very cold and very sober: that we have to rid the land of its current occupants if we want to create this."
For Piker, the desire to maintain a Jewish demographic edge is at the core of Zionism, and therefor it is inherently racist. "I don't see any difference between Jewish demographic concerns and the American Christian nationalist movement, the white nationalist movement."
So in your view, at the end of the day, your aim is to educate people to make them anti-Zionists?
"Yeah, for sure. And I would go so far as to say I've seen much success in this endeavor as well," Piker says. "My goal is to hopefully get people to come to terms with why this violence – why Israel has done things that you find unfathomable, that you find shameful."
He says this position has made him a target. "Jonathan Greenblatt hates me more than he hates Nick Fuentes or Tucker Carlson because of me endlessly talking about the separation of Zionism and Judaism.
"You might disagree with me on my analysis of Zionism or Israel – plenty of people do – but do you really think me going away is going to solve this problem?"
Calling someone a Nazi has consequences. Do you think about the downstream effect of the language you use – whether it ends up leading to targeting or violence?
"I think people have a responsibility, especially now, to show that they are not on the side of what Israel is doing as loudly and boldly as possible. That's the way I see it. I don't want any harm committed against random citizens, whether they be Jewish or Muslim. I want a peaceful solution, and no, I don't think that me calling Zionism a Nazi ideology is fomenting violence towards Jews broadly. I genuinely don't believe that."
I'm going to push you one more time on it. You're talking about American liberal Zionists, right? People who have no real material connection to Israel, maybe some sort of emotional idea about Israel. Labeling them Nazis puts them outside the category of acceptable, normal people.
"I think that the anti-genocide position should be staked out very clearly. That's what I mean. There's definitely a naming and shaming here, for sure. And I think that's a level of social pressure that, to the best of my ability, with the limited powers of persuasion that I have, I want to apply so that people reconsider where they're at or what degree of separation they want to have with a country that is currently an occupation and has been for the last 80 years and has committed a genocide."
Piker insists that even his harshest attacks on Zionism are directed at an ideology, not at Jews as Jews. "The social stigmatization of feeling a sense of loyalty, or a sense of belonging, to the State of Israel, that is a byproduct of social conditioning," he says. "I think we have to oppose that."
Piker attributes some of the rise in antisemitism in the United States to organizations that he sees as conflating Judaism, Zionism and Israel. "I think [New York Times journalist] Ezra Klein said it perfectly: 'If you tell everyone that opposing Israel is opposing Jews, eventually they'll believe you.' And I think that's where we're at.
"There's a conversation around Jewish exceptionalism. It's like, why are we talking about antisemitism so much when it's so clearly, in most instances, being weaponized against the anti-Zionist position or the anti-Israel position, the pro-Palestinian position broadly?"
"If you were to ask me how I try to combat it, I just say what I believe unconditionally: that Zionism and Judaism are totally separate things, even though there has been a real concerted effort to marry the two, especially in the last 100 years or so, and that has seen a decent level of success."
But separating the two conceptually does not necessarily mean they remain separate in practice. Several attacks have shaken American Jewish communities since October 7, including a Molotov cocktail attack on a Boulder, Colorado rally for Israeli hostages in 2025 and the attack on Temple Israel synagogue in West Bloomfield, Michigan in 2026.
You have people targeting places like Temple Israel because they are Zionist. We're seeing rising antisemitism and questions about whether anti-Zionist rhetoric bleeds into antisemitism. Where does it bleed into antisemitism? Where's the line?
"I think the line is when you are in the United States of America and you're deciding to target Jewish institutions, target Jews in general. I think that's the line. That's not even a question."
He points to the Sholem Aleichem Cultural Center in the Bronx, a Yiddish cultural institution vandalized with "Free Palestine" graffiti in October 2023. "People are not making this distinction – that an institution most likely to be broadly anti-Zionist [The Center is not an anti-Zionist institution. Sholem Aleichem, who died in 1916, was a Zionist] – is being tagged with Israel's crimes because it's considered a Jewish institution," he says.
I'm just thinking about the rhetoric. Jewish communities are feeling targeted in this atmosphere. We know the ADL is doing its part – where do you see a responsibility from the anti-Zionist left, from the pro-Palestinian left? What do you think about rhetoric in that field?
"I think the anti-Zionist left and the pro-Palestinian left broadly is very careful. I think they're becoming less careful in the way they communicate on these issues," he says.
"There's a conversation around Jewish exceptionalism. It's like, why are we talking about antisemitism so much when it's so clearly, in most instances, being weaponized against the anti-Zionist position or the anti-Israel position, the pro-Palestinian position broadly? I still talk about it because it's a bigotry that I oppose. It's that simple."
A Presidential Litmus Test
El-Sayed's victory, after a primary in which AIPAC-affiliated groups spent heavily to defeat him, suggested that Israel will remain central in Democratic primaries and beyond. Piker – like many in his camp - is waiting to see if the Democratic establishment will stand in the way of progressive candidates in the general election.
"I think Michigan is a really interesting case study for testing out our theory that the populist left actually draws turnout from low-propensity voters with much greater ease," Piker says. "As long as the establishment, the traditional liberal base, consolidates support around a populist candidate once they make it out of the primaries, we will skirt our way into victory."
We're approaching the midterms, and then in '28 presidential candidates will emerge. You've become a central figure, like it or not. Where does your political support go? Let's say there's a candidate who's amazing on health care, climate and inequality, but on Israel, he's not there yet?
"It depends," Piker says. "I think it's a reliable litmus test for good reason."
Considering the political climate, Piker expects the eventual Democratic nominee won't be strongly pro-Israel. "It's like saying I'm 100 percent certain that the Democratic presidential candidate is going to be pro-choice."
"Being expressly against the occupation, the apartheid, will probably be a fixture in Democratic primaries," he says. "I think AIPAC and other groups are aware of that, so they're trying to nip this in the bud by applying the same money cannon to these races, to make sure candidates think twice before coming out with an anti-Israel position. But I don't think that's going to be a real calculation."
He believes the candidates, and voters, are making the same connection he is. "How can you trust someone to be a real advocate for, you know, fixing the potholes, fixing the roads, caring about American healthcare if you can't trust them to stop sending money to Israel and if you can't trust them to be against genocide?" he asks.
Republicans have sought to make Piker a symbol of the Democratic Party, branding him an antisemite, a Maoist and anti-American. Some establishment Democrats have also targeted him. Haley Stevens, who lost to El-Sayed and has said she will support him in the general election, is still calling for him to "get rid of this Hasan Piker affiliation." When Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida defeated DSA-backed challenger Oliver Larkin, his first post was a jeer at Piker.
Piker argues that attempts to make candidates answer for associating with him haven't worked.
"I don't think the masses care necessarily about associative politics, because why should they?" he says. "They care about putting food on their table. They care about having a roof over their heads and the cost-of-living crisis. They don't care about a Twitch streamer affiliating themselves with Abdul El-Sayed and how scary that is."
"Part of the reason this associative politics doesn't work is because Donald Trump is the president. Trump himself has said heinous things and associated with and campaigned alongside heinous and odious figures."
"I myself, of course, don't believe that I have any comparison to these toxic figures on the right, regardless of how the media tries to present it."
When we finish the call, Piker jokes about the potential backlash "for talking to the arch-terrorist," before turning earnest.
"Hopefully people understand that I'm a very pragmatic and very agreeable person," he says.