PETER TATCHELL: How can chanting five words provoke more outrage than Israel's mass killing of civilians in Gaza?

Something is seriously wrong when chanting five words provokes more outrage than Israel’s mass killing of civilians in Gaza, including 15,000 children.

Bob Vylan led crowds at Glastonbury in chants of “Death, death to the IDF [Israel Defense Forces].” He said he was calling for a “change in foreign policy.” Such a call is legitimate free speech but the way he expressed it is questionable.

Although I am highly critical of Israel’s (and Hamas’s) war crimes, I would not have used those words. But from a Palestinian perspective, Israel is indiscriminately bombing their homes, shops, hospitals and schools.

To them, those words are the equivalent to British people saying “Death, death to the German airforce”, as it bombed our cities during World War Two. If we defend the latter, why is a similar sentiment against the IDF over its war crimes so outrageous?

Free speech includes the right to say offensive, and even appalling, things. But it does not include the right to make violent threats.

READ MORE: Bob Vylan IDF chant: Everything you need to know as BBC admits Glastonbury 'regret'

“Death, death to the IDF” comes very close to inciting the murder of Israeli soldiers, in response to their murder of innocent Palestinians. If it had been a call to kill specific Israeli personnel, the charge of incitement might be answerable in court. But a generic call for death probably would not. Besides, no one at Glastonbury is going to kill an Israeli soldier as a result of Vylan’s words. It’s protest rhetoric; not intended to be taken literally.

On the other hand, if a neo-Nazi band urged “Death, death to black people” most of us would find that unacceptable. We’d agree it was tantamount to inciting murder and could pose a real threat to the safety of Black Britons from violent far right groups.

The BBC had no idea what Vylan was going to say. But to cover itself, it posted on-screen warnings about discriminatory language during his set. It could have switched coverage when the offensive chants were heard, which may have been the best option. But that would have left the BBC open to the charge of censorship.

Either way, the real issue is the moral obligation to speak out against war crimes. That’s what Vylan did, even if his words were outrageous.