This week, the British government banned Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur, two leftwing US commentators with millions of followers, from entering the country on the grounds that their presence would not be “conducive to the public good”. It did not spell out what it meant by this very broad phrase, but Piker and Uygur have accused the government of denying them entry because of their prolific criticism of Israel. Some critics have accused the pair of antisemitism, which they deny.
Neither Piker nor Uygur have said anything that is more divisive or dangerous than former Israeli president Isaac Herzog’s declaration that all Palestinians were responsible for the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023. A UN commission of inquiry found that Herzog incited the commission of genocide with this statement and said that his later modifications of that utterance were an effort “to deflect responsibility for the initial statement”. Still, the British seem fine with that first statement: Herzog met with Keir Starmer in London in 2025. Clearly that meeting was deemed to be conducive to the public good.
Wherever you live, whatever you believe, wherever you sit on the political spectrum, most of us have a shared understanding of basic moral concepts, of what is good and what is bad. We understand that children are innocent and should not be killed in the thousands. We understand that a region’s healthcare system should not be systematically wiped out and medics targeted. We understand that there should be laws around warfare to protect civilians. We understand that people should not be expelled en masse from their land, their homes replaced with luxury settlements. We understand that collective punishment is a crime, one that is very much not “conducive to the public good”.
When you stop someone from entering your country because you deem that they are not “conducive to the public good”, then I think it’s important to spell out exactly what you mean by “good”. The British government has declined to do that directly. But what has become very clear, over the last couple of years, is that the UK and US have deemed it conducive for the public good for Israel to be allowed to do whatever it likes, with no limits. What is morally bad, apparently, is talking about it.
I think he’s controlled opposition. He genuinely cannot touch a socialist talking point without making it look stupid in his presentation of it
I think Hasan is compromised in many ways but he was one of the few online creators who took a strong pro-Palestine stance when it was still deeply unpopular, even batting for the resistance.
Hasan Piker is much less radical than the people I follow, but he also has a much larger platform. Which might be why him and his uncle got in the crosshairs. It was a targeted campaign.
Zionists generally don’t care too much about people who speak out against them until they reach a certain size or are uncompromising in their rhetoric. For Hasan it’s the first of those two.
The last possible saving throw that the establishment can give their controlled opposition figures. The strongly worded letters, the slap-on-the-wrist brief stay in jail or (🙀) being banned off Twitter (for whole days! can you imagine not doing your job for several days). For best results, apply directly after progressive humiliation. People asking too many questions about why your epic “former” CIA agent lied about being present at the torture of Abu Zubaydah? Hmm, that may be harder. Bring in Larry Ellison. And funny video editors
It’s giving NYT boosting Jackson Hinkle. Enough frat boys, Americans. You send enough of them here, but the airwaves too? Have shame?
And of course he was there for that toad Varoufakis, ready to boast about how Marx could never have anticipated finance capital.
