Aaron Regunberg
Role at the time: Contributing editor at The New Republic, writing in his interview article
Challenged the characterization
Statement summary
In his New Republic interview with Piker, Regunberg wrote that a quantitative comparison of Hamas and Israel has limits but that Piker's underlying observation about the scale of harm was not antisemitic.
“Personally, I think there are limits to a quantitative comparison of Hamas and Israel, both of which have done horrendous things—but it’s not antisemitic of Piker to make the observation that Israel has killed more innocent people and caused more suffering and destruction than Hamas.”
Open the original interview (opens in a new tab)Hasan Piker Has a Few Choice Words for His Bad-Faith CriticsSection on the "Hamas is a thousand times better" comment
Why we used this label
The reference point is Piker's preference for Hamas over Israel and what it justifies. Regunberg disputes the charge that the comparison is antisemitic while saying such comparisons have limits, so he rejects a description without endorsing the preference. Defended or excused is the closest alternative, but he does not say Hamas is better than Israel or that the comparison is justified as stated. Evidence: his own published article.