A few weeks ago, many of the voices now speaking loudly on free speech were notably quiet when the UK government banned right-wing commentators, journalists, activists, and political critics from entering the country ahead of Tommy Robinson’s Unite the Kingdom rally.

Some of those targeted were outspoken supporters of Israel. Most were critics of mass migration, radical Islam, or the political establishment. The common thread was simple: they were politically inconvenient to the Keir Starmer Labour government.

Much of the online left responded with silence, and in some cases, open approval, as the government moved against its political opponents on the right.

Now, the situation has shifted.

the uk has revoked my visa as well. all at the behest of israel. the west is betraying "liberal values" for a genocidal fascist foreign government. soon we will all become israel. https://t.co/UqQG1dogOI

— hasanabi (@hasanthehun) May 31, 2026

Far-left American commentator Cenk Uygur from the Young Turks and his livestreamer newphew Hasan Piker have reportedly been barred from entering the United Kingdom under the same Home Office standard used repeatedly in recent months: that their presence is “not conducive to the public good.”

Same government. Same Home Office. Same justification. Different targets.

And suddenly, the same people who showed little interest in defending others now claim to be victims of censorship and political repression. But rather than question the policy itself, they’ve gone elsewhere entirely.

They’ve blamed Israel.

A few weeks ago they cheered when pro-Israel activists, journalists and commentators were banned from the UK.

Now it’s happened to their side and suddenly it’s a scandal.

And somehow Israel is still to blame.

— Avi Yemini (@OzraeliAvi) May 31, 2026

Cenk Uygur has suggested his exclusion proves Israeli influence over Western governments. Hasan Piker has echoed similar claims, implying pro-Israel organisations were involved.

The problem is that the theory collapses the moment it meets reality.

The same UK government they accuse of acting on Israel’s behalf has spent months targeting people on the opposite side of the debate. I know this firsthand. I am a pro-Israel Jewish journalist who was also denied entry into the UK under the same system.

Others with strongly pro-Israel views, including activists and commentators, have faced the same treatment. At the same time, the UK government has sanctioned senior Israeli officials and even threatened to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he enters British territory.

Weird how you ignored the UK banning pro-Israel activists, journalists and commentators a few weeks ago.

Now that it’s happened to you, suddenly it’s a scandal and Israel is to blame.

Must be exhausting being that full of hate.

— Avi Yemini (@OzraeliAvi) May 31, 2026

So the question is simple: if Israel is directing these decisions, why is the same system being used against pro-Israel voices, Jewish commentators, and Israeli officials?

At that point, the argument stops making sense. It requires believing a government sanctioning Israel and excluding its supporters is secretly acting in Israel’s interests. That is not analysis. It is contradiction.

Go Ad Free

What makes this more revealing is how quickly responsibility is shifted away from British authorities themselves.

The Home Secretary is not taking instructions from Jerusalem. The Home Office is not controlled by Israel. These are British decisions, made by a British government under British law.

Yet Israel still becomes the explanation.

Even when the same government has repeatedly taken hostile positions toward Israel, some cannot accept that British officials are acting independently. There must be a hidden hand. Some unseen influence. Some familiar shadow.

It is a pattern that says more about the reflex than the reality.

The UK has increasingly relied on vague standards like “public order” and “not conducive to the public good” to decide who can enter the country. Those powers are broad, subjective, and easily applied inconsistently depending on political context.

I do not support banning people for their political views. I did not support it when it happened to me, and I do not support it now. Free speech should be tested in public debate, not filtered through immigration decisions.

But there is an obvious irony in watching those who previously backed such measures suddenly rediscover their dangers when they are on the receiving end.

That contradiction is now on full display, alongside what can only be described as Israel Derangement Syndrome, as some attempt to force the issue into a conspiratorial narrative centred on Israel.

The simplest explanation still stands.

Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker were not banned because Israel controls British policy.

They were refused entry by an increasingly authoritarian government that has expanded its powers over speech, association, and political expression.

And when that system is turned on them, the instinct is not to confront the principle at stake.

It is to redirect the blame onto Israel.