Far-left streamer Hasan Piker equates Israel’s ‘right to exist’ to Nazi Germany
Streamer Hasan Piker sparked controversy after telling "The Breakfast Club" that Israel, in its "current formation," does not have a "right to exist," comparing the claim to asking whether Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa or Rhodesia had a right to exist. He also equated Zionism with fascism, arguing the comparison to Nazi Germany reflects why Israeli society has moved rightward, while insisting his position does not amount to advocating violence against Jews or Israelis. His remarks have deepened divisions within the Democratic Party, where some figures embrace him and others distance themselves.
A UCLA professor, Benjamin Radd, disputed Piker's framing of Israel as a "settler colonial" project seeking the "extermination" of the indigenous population, calling it historically ignorant and arguing multiple groups, including Jews, hold legitimate indigenous claims. The row has particular resonance in Michigan, where Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, who has previously campaigned alongside Piker, moved to distance his campaign from the streamer after Piker featured an image of Jewish state senator Jeremy Moss, a Democratic congressional nominee who says a fake audio clip has circulated misrepresenting his views on US support for Israel.
In short
- Piker likened Israel's "right to exist" to Nazi Germany's, calling it apartheid.
- A UCLA professor rejected his "settler colonial" characterisation as historically inaccurate.
- Comments have split Democrats, with Michigan candidate El-Sayed distancing himself from Piker.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Piker’s strongest case is that a state’s right to exist should not be treated as unconditional when its political structure or policies deny equal rights or self-determination to another people. He argues that criticising Zionism or Israel’s current formation is a political judgement about a state, not a call for violence against Jews or Israelis, and that historical comparisons can expose the dangers of treating any national project as beyond criticism.
The case against
The strongest case against Piker’s framing is that comparing Israel to Nazi Germany risks collapsing distinct histories and can obscure Jewish people’s deep historical and indigenous ties to the land, as well as their need for collective security after centuries of persecution. Critics argue that denying Israel’s right to exist, rather than focusing on particular policies or arrangements, can imply that Jews alone should lack national self-determination and may intensify hostility towards Jewish people.
Explained simply
Hasan Piker is a political streamer whose comments can attract attention among left-wing audiences and Democratic politicians. Zionism is a movement supporting a Jewish homeland in the historic land of Israel; people disagree over its meaning and how it relates to Palestinian rights and the history of the region.
The argument centres on whether Israel, as it is currently constituted, has a right to exist, and on comparisons between Zionism and other political systems. Historians and commentators disagree about how those comparisons fit the region’s history and the competing claims of Jews and Palestinians.
The dispute has also become relevant to Democratic politics in Michigan. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed has had public links with Piker, while state senator Jeremy Moss, a Jewish Democrat, has been drawn into a separate dispute involving a fake audio clip about US support for Israel.