Why is Hasan Piker ‘not conducive to the public good’? Because on Gaza, we punish the witness, not the crime The British government banned commentators Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur, citing their presence as not ‘conducive to the public good,’ a phrase the author suggests is used to obscure a deeper manipulation of moral perceptions regarding the conflict in Gaza. The article contends that while Piker and Uygur have made questionable statements, these are less divisive than official declarations from Israeli figures and that the focus on banning critics deflects from the atrocities occurring. Ultimately, the author argues that the UK and US have deemed it ‘conducive to the public good’ for Israel to act with impunity, while criticizing these actions is framed as morally bad.

• The British government banned US commentators Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur from entering the country, stating their presence would not be ‘conducive to the public good’.
• Piker and Uygur accuse the government of denying them entry due to their criticism of Israel, a claim the author supports by contrasting their statements with those of Israeli officials and conservative commentators like Ben Shapiro.
• The article argues that the ban is part of a broader effort to manipulate fundamental moral concepts of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ concerning the situation in Gaza and the West Bank.
• The author highlights the systematic destruction in Gaza, the targeting of journalists, and the dehumanization of Palestinians in media coverage as evidence of atrocities that are being obscured.
• Criticizing Israel’s actions is presented as increasingly penalized, with bans and visa restrictions hindering free speech, while Israel has increased its PR budget to control the narrative.