An Investigation Into the Antisemitism Accusations Made Against Hasan Piker

I spent weeks delving into the most common accusations made by the ADL, politicians, and others. What I found was a scandalous case of purposeful disinformation.

For the last month or so, there has been a relentless campaign targeting Hasan Piker with accusations of antisemitism.

He has been dogged by these accusations for years, especially since October 7th and his denunciation of Israel’s response.

But the latest iteration has been notable because it seems to be an all out assault by a number of voices. If they aren’t coordinating, they are notably similar in tone and content. The same arguments, same evidence, and at times even the same language, are used to call out Piker.

It started with Third Way, a supposedly Democratic organization pushing for a centrist platform, and whose president described as, “the chief opponent of the left” in the party. The same president co-wrote an op-ed making a number of accusations, such as that Piker has used antisemitic tropes and that Piker compared Zionists to Nazis.

Other accusations have since surfaced, ones that were originally spread by the likes of Ritchie Torres, a Democratic Congressman who has built much of his recent profile around defending Israel, and Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League.

I have spent the last two weeks combing through the most common accusations. The reason is that I was struck by how many of the clips I was seeing were no longer than twenty seconds. It felt bizarre to me that people could make such strong accusations without much evidence beyond these clips: as someone who researches extremism online, I found it ironic that many of the people supposedly fighting extremism were themselves falling for or even employing the tactics many propagandists use like turning short, manipulated clips into an overarching argument. (Check out this resource to see examples of how this is done in other contexts).

Considering the stature of those who are spreading these claims, I felt it was important to evaluate the full context behind these clips. Were they just used to make accurate accusations more shareable? Which would merely be irresponsible. Or were they actually sharing disinformation? Which would be a scandal.

The more I dug, the more I came to a very clear verdict: scandal.

Below are the most widespread accusations, who they came from, and how they were manipulated to make false accusations of antisemitism against Hasan Piker.

Two Notes

Before I get into the details, I want to make a few things clear.

First, this is not an exhaustive list of all the accusations. This is less a piece about Piker’s own positions as a piece examining the integrity of those who have made the accusations. Whatever one thinks of Piker, it is bizarre to me that no one is demanding more rigorous standards from people like a Congressman and the CEO of a $100 million antisemitism organization.

Second, this is not a post that assumes all anti-Zionism and anti-Israel sentiment is by definition antisemitic. If one thinks that, then there is not much to debate. Piker is openly and proudly anti-Zionist.

I do not believe anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. I align with the Nexus Project's and Jerusalem Declaration's definitions of antisemitism, which hold that anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel are only antisemitic when they invoke antisemitic tropes, like the claim that Israel or Jews control our government, media, or financial systems. Both frameworks were developed by Jewish scholars specifically to distinguish legitimate political criticism from genuine bigotry.

The Accusations

Calling a Jew a “bloodthirsty pig dog”

What follows is the story of how a clip from a dedicated attack website run by an openly Islamophobic former political operative ended up cited in a Congressional letter, laundered through a Wall Street Journal op-ed, and repeated across mainstream Jewish and general media, without anyone along the way asking where it came from.

One of the most-cited accusations used against Piker is from a time he called one of his viewers a “bloodthirsty pig dog.”

The claim was shared in the Third Way article and specifically labeled an antisemitic dog whistle. It was also cited by Ritchie Torres in a Congressional letter to the CEO of Twitch calling for Piker to be deplatformed. Third Way’s link was actually to the same video used by Torres.

The video they use is created by a seemingly anonymous creator called “HamasPiker.” But when you visit the HamasPiker website, it is attributed to an account called “Old Man Londre.” It turns out that Andrew Londre publicly claims the ‘OldManLondre’ handle as his own on his personal website. Londre is a Democratic political operative who has built dedicated opposition research sites to target people like Andrew Yang. It seems like HamasPiker is another example of this kind of work.

Londre’s own public Twitter account also includes openly Islamophobic content. In May 2024, he tweeted: “Is mental retardation more common among Muslims? Seems so.”

As for the actual insult: was Piker being antisemitic? Is the insult itself antisemitic?

His video cites one source: the Wiener Library, which calls it an 'antisemitic insult.' But when you go to the site, what they are actually documenting is how SS guards weaponized a generic German insult against Jewish prisoners at Sachsenhausen and during the November 1938 pogroms. That is a description of historical Nazi usage, not a claim that the word itself is inherently antisemitic.

The term itself is a general German insult roughly equivalent to ‘bastard,’ used for centuries in contexts ranging from Monty Python sketches to modern German slang for one’s own laziness (’innerer Schweinehund,’ your ‘inner pig dog’). Native German speakers on language forums debate whether it’s still offensive at all.

There is no established usage of ‘pig dog’ as an antisemitic slur in contemporary American English.

Beyond all this, some Reddit sleuths and Piker fans discovered examples of Piker using the insult in other contexts dating back to 2022, all against non-Jews.

So, to sum it up: “pig dog” is not inherently antisemitic, especially not in English. And the “proof” was actually from two very specific usages.

And the account cited is run by an Islamophobic political operative who is known for using short clips to damage political opponents.

This is one of the examples given by the Third Way, Ritchie Torres, and countless other leaders and organizations like HonestReporting.

At best, this is a massive case of irresponsibly citing sources. At worst, it is a purposeful attempt to destroy Piker’s credibility and by extension any progressive Democrats who dare benefit from his popularity.

“It doesn’t matter if rape happened on October 7th.”

The most widely circulated quote used against Piker is just as distorted as the ‘pig dog’ one. And it is perhaps the most widely cited as evidence of his antisemitism. It also appeared in the Third Way op-ed, cited by Torres, spread by Jonathan Greenblatt, called out by Dana Bash on CNN, published in many outlets, and on and on.

The clip most often cited is 17 seconds long. In it he says, “It doesn’t matter if fucking rapes happened on October 7th. It doesn’t change the dynamic for me even this much.”

Here’s what was actually happening in that clip, taken from a larger segment (timestamp included).

The larger clip is a discussion between him and his viewers about the need not to discount “non-firsthand accounts” of sexual assault and rape on October 7th. He cites a commenter who says, “  But it’s sad to see people just dismiss any non firsthand account out of hand. Firsthand accounts are always going to be rare for extreme sexual violence and extremists. It takes so much bravery to come out.”

More to the point, the reason he says that “it doesn’t matter if rapes occurred” was because he was actually debating one of his viewers who was spreading a conspiracy theory that the hostages who claimed they were sexually assaulted were forced by the Israeli government to say so. He calls that idea “ridiculous.”

It is after that when he goes on to say that you can accept that without saying that these assaults justify a genocide or denying the Palestinians “a right to, to dignity, a right to emancipation, a right to live fucking free lives free from this occupation.”

To summarize: the very segment that has been used to claim Piker denies the rapes and sexual assaults that occurred on October 7th (that, yes, did occur) are actually in the context of him claiming they did occur. And, more than that, calling out his viewers for saying they might not have occurred.

Using this to claim the opposite is not just a case of spreading disinformation. It actually is a great illustration of the way organizations and leaders hurt the very people who could be helping them. If the goal is actually to address the lies and conspiracy theories claiming rape did not occur on October 7th, Piker is a good person to deliver that message to the very people who need to hear it. The effort to deplatform him kills that chance and ultimately worsens the fight against antisemitism.

Downplaying the Boulder Attack

A similar distortion occurred with one of the ADL’s most cited callouts. The claim: that Piker “downplayed” the horrifying firebombing attack on a Run for Their Lives hostage solidarity walk in Boulder, Colorado.

Unlike the other claims which relied on distorted clips gathered by others, this one was generated and pushed primarily by the Anti-Defamation League, which makes it even more egregious.

More than that, it was used to place a target on Piker’s back. In a Fox News interview after the attack, Greenblatt actually used it to call on the Trump administration to target Piker and others, saying, “We’ve got to stop it once and for all. I hope the Trump administration will do just that.”

Here’s what actually happened.

The day after the attack, Piker shared his commentary (timestamp included) on the coverage of the attack.

Almost right away, Piker starts berating someone in his audience for justifying the attack because it was “pro-Israel.” He calls it “psychotic” and an “insane thing to do.”

He goes further, saying, “it’s like attempted fucking mass murder basically” and “Once again, revenge is not justice. This is something that I need to be very clear about.” And calls it “Senseless fucking violence. That’s it.”

All of this as he is clearly disgusted with anyone saying anything different, saying, “Motherfuckers could do anything as long as they slap a free Palestine at the end of it. There’s like dumb fucks that will go, oh, that was actually based. Like, you’re a fucking moron.”

When someone claims it is a false flag, he says, “No, dude. Stop. Stop. I haven’t seen enough details, but stop, stop immediately assuming it’s a fucking false flag. Please. Jesus Christ, dude. Some of you guys are so unserious.”

What the ADL cites in its claim that Piker downplayed the attacks is a brief moment in the same livestream in which he interviews Chris Hedges. Hedges is the one who calls the attack a “natural human reaction,” arguing that these kinds of attacks by definition occur in reaction to brutal regimes. Piker nods along, then joins Hedges in comparisons to Jewish resistance under Nazi oppression.

I personally find the discussion disgusting and stupid. I think Hedges is an idiot, and the analogies gross.

But that doesn’t change the fact that the ADL’s depiction rests on one brief moment and not on the far longer time Piker spends arguing forcefully against anyone in his audience for justifying the attack or calling it a false flag. They erased his calling it “psychotic,” “unjust” etc.

What makes this even more striking: Piker actually addresses Greenblatt’s accusation directly during the same stream, calling it “psychotic.” Greenblatt was already accusing him of being responsible for the attack while Piker was condemning the attack and pushing back on conspiracy theories about it. The ADL then used the conversation with Hedges, taken out of all that surrounding context, to retroactively justify the accusation.

This is purposeful disinformation. Worse, it was instrumentalized in an attempt to get the Trump administration to come down on Piker and other activists.

Again, another scandal. And this one with the Trump administration’s enforcement apparatus listening.

The Irony

I’ve written before about how fights against antisemitism, when done in a punitive manner and in public, can actually make people more antisemitic. This situation is the perfect example.

These are just three instances, but they are damning. For all the expectations on Piker to be responsible with his words, the people making the accusations are beyond irresponsible with theirs.

And these are not random critics, they are authorities, politicians, and leaders. Their words carry consequences. The outcry that has been ongoing since the Third Way op-ed could not have occurred or perpetuated without their involvement.

The irony of all this is that there really are moments Piker needs to be called out. His claim that Haredi Jews are “inbred” is genuinely tied to antisemitic tropes that often target religious Jews. But the manner in which the accusation is shared comes alongside these lies, thus drowning it out. And it’s the kind of language that could be used to educate rather than ostracize. But that is not their goal: it is to cut him out and down.

And there are even worse moments for him which they, amazingly, largely overlook. For example, his language around the Epstein Files has been deeply irresponsible in a moment where we need great care. As I wrote here recently, the conspiratorial nature of the scandal makes it all too easy to fall into antisemitic conspiracy theories. And, at times, this is exactly what Piker has done. The use of language like “cabal” and tying all connections to Israel with little mention of Russia are examples of language that can genuinely endanger Jews, especially in the context of the Files.

None of this makes him comparable to Nick Fuentes, despite what major Democratic candidates and others say. Fuentes would never get angry at his audience for justifying an attack on a pro-Israel march, and he has absolutely no problem using well-known slurs against Jews. To argue that the issues above are comparable is not only to make a false accusation, it is to destroy the potential for a true coalition to defeat fascism and, ultimately, protect Jews as well as so many others.

None of this matters to his most high profile accusers, however. So those who take their claims at face value, or justify the deliberate disinformation they spread in order to wave away their responsibility, must do some introspection.

If our goal is to actually defeat antisemitism, this is not the way.