Latest posts by MRPMWoodman (see all)
- Data Entry - 21.09.2025
- Free【世界逆転宣言！Music Video】/ 世界逆転宣言！ Sekai Gyakuten Sengen 2025 - 20.09.2025
- Free Images cosplay cosplayer maou-chan maou 2025 - 09.09.2025
1. Description of Bob Vylan’s Chants at Glastonbury 2025
Here
On Saturday, June 28, 2025, the British punk-rap duo Bob Vylan, consisting of Bobby Vylan (singer/guitarist) and Bobbie Vylan (drummer), performed on the West Holts Stage at the Glastonbury Festival, one of the UK’s largest music festivals, attended by approximately 200,000 people. During their set, which was broadcast live on BBC iPlayer, Bobby Vylan led the crowd in several politically charged chants that sparked significant controversy. The chants included:
Here
“Free, Free Palestine”: A widely recognized slogan used in pro-Palestinian activism, often interpreted as a call for Palestinian liberation from Israeli occupation. The phrase is associated with support for Palestinian self-determination but is contentious, as some interpret it as implying the elimination of Israel, particularly when paired with other slogans.
Here
“Death, Death to the IDF”: This chant explicitly targeted the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), the military of the State of Israel. Bobby Vylan shouted this into the microphone, encouraging the crowd to join in, with some festivalgoers visibly participating.
Here
“From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free”: This slogan refers to the geographical area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, encompassing Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. It is a polarizing phrase, with pro-Palestinian activists arguing it calls for freedom and equality for Palestinians, while critics, including many Jewish organizations and Israeli officials, interpret it as a call for the destruction of Israel and the elimination of Jewish self-determination.
In addition to the chants, Bob Vylan performed in front of a screen displaying messages critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza, including one that read: “United Nations have called it a genocide. The BBC calls it a ‘conflict.’” This message challenged the BBC’s framing of the Israel-Palestine conflict and aligned with the band’s broader critique of Western complicity in what they described as war crimes against Palestinians. Bobby Vylan also made verbal statements during the performance, including describing himself as a “violent punk” and suggesting that “sometimes we have to get our message across with violence because that’s the only language some people speak, unfortunately.” These remarks were perceived by some as endorsing or inciting violence.
The performance was part of a broader context at Glastonbury 2025, where other acts, such as the Irish rap trio Kneecap, also expressed pro-Palestinian sentiments. Bob Vylan’s set preceded Kneecap’s, and both performances contributed to a politically charged atmosphere on the West Holts Stage, drawing attention from festivalgoers, media, and political figures.
Here
2. Is Bob Vylan’s Chant Antisemitic?
Determining whether Bob Vylan’s chants constitute antisemitism requires careful consideration of the content, context, and intent behind their words, as well as the broader discourse around antisemitism and criticism of Israel. Antisemitism is generally understood as hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, widely adopted by governments and institutions, includes examples such as “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” or “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.” However, the definition also emphasizes that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country is not inherently antisemitic.
Arguments for Antisemitism:
Here
The “Death to the IDF” Chant: Critics, including the Israeli Embassy, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and the Campaign Against Antisemitism, argue that chanting “Death to the IDF” is antisemitic because it targets the military of the Jewish state in a manner perceived as inciting violence against Israelis, many of whom are Jewish. The IDF is a conscripted force, meaning most Israeli citizens serve, so attacking it can be interpreted as targeting a significant portion of the Jewish population. The Israeli Embassy stated on X that such chants “advocate for the dismantling of the State of Israel and implicitly call for the elimination of Jewish self-determination”.
Here
“From the River to the Sea”: This slogan is particularly contentious. Critics, including the Israeli government and some Jewish advocacy groups, argue it implies the erasure of Israel as a Jewish state, which they consider antisemitic under the IHRA definition. The phrase’s association with calls for Palestinian control over all land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is seen by some as denying Jewish self-determination.
Here
Context of Glastonbury: The setting—a music festival with a history of activism but also a place associated with peace and unity—amplified concerns. Some, including a mother quoted in the Daily Mail, expressed distress over the chants, arguing they normalized “extremist language” and could be interpreted as calling for violence against Jews, especially given the historical context of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on the Nova music festival in Israel, where 1,200 people were killed.
Arguments Against Antisemitism:
Here
Targeting the IDF, Not Jews: Bob Vylan’s chants specifically targeted the IDF, a state institution, rather than Jews as a people. The IDF has been criticized internationally for its actions in Gaza, including by the United Nations, which has described Israel’s military operations as potentially constituting genocide. Pro-Palestinian activists, including groups like UK Screen Industry, argue that “Death to the IDF” is a rhetorical call to dismantle a military apparatus accused of war crimes, not a literal threat against Jews or Israelis as a whole.
Here
Political Context: Bob Vylan’s performance included broader critiques of UK and US foreign policy, accusing them of complicity in a “genocide” in Gaza. Their focus was on state actions, not Jewish identity. The band’s Instagram statement emphasized advocating for change and inspiring future generations to speak out, framing their actions as political activism rather than ethnic or religious hatred.
Here
Freedom of Expression: Supporters argue that the chants fall within the realm of free speech and political protest. The phrase “From the river to the sea” is used by many pro-Palestinian activists to call for an end to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza, not the destruction of Israel itself. This interpretation disputes the antisemitic label, emphasizing the chant’s focus on Palestinian liberation.
Critical Analysis:
The question of antisemitism hinges on intent and perception. Bob Vylan’s chants did not explicitly target Jews as a group, focusing instead on the IDF and Israel’s policies. However, the provocative nature of “Death to the IDF” and the ambiguous interpretation of “From the river to the sea” can evoke fear among Jewish communities, particularly in light of rising antisemitic incidents globally. The IHRA definition suggests that context matters—while criticizing Israeli policy is not inherently antisemitic, rhetoric that appears to call for violence or the elimination of Israel can cross into antisemitism if it denies Jewish self-determination or incites harm. Bobby Vylan’s statement about using “violence” as a language further complicates the perception, as it could be interpreted as incitement, though he did not directly call for attacks on Jews.
The chants’ setting at a music festival, coupled with their broadcast by the BBC, amplified their impact, making them appear to some as a normalization of extremist rhetoric. However, without explicit references to Jews as a group, it’s challenging to conclusively label the chants as antisemitic under strict definitions. The polarized interpretations reflect the broader Israel-Palestine debate, where language is often weaponized by both sides.
3. Can You Attack the IDF and Not Be Antisemitic?
Yes, it is possible to criticize or “attack” the actions of the IDF without being antisemitic, provided the criticism targets specific policies, actions, or institutional practices rather than Jews as a people or Israel’s right to exist. Here’s a detailed exploration:
Here
Distinguishing State from Identity: The IDF is a state institution, not a synonym for Jewish people. Criticizing its actions—such as military operations in Gaza, which have resulted in significant civilian casualties (over 56,000 deaths since October 2023, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry)—is akin to criticizing the military of any nation. For example, condemning US military actions in Iraq or Russian actions in Ukraine does not inherently equate to hatred of Americans or Russians. Similarly, targeting IDF policies, such as airstrikes or blockades, can be a legitimate critique of state conduct without implicating Jewish identity.
Here
International Criticism: The IDF has faced widespread international scrutiny, including from the UN, which has accused Israel of actions “consistent with the characteristics of genocide”. Countries like the UK, France, and Canada have called for Israel to halt “egregious” military actions in Gaza. These criticisms are directed at policy and do not inherently target Jews.
Here
Context and Language: The line between legitimate criticism and antisemitism lies in the language and intent. Phrases like “Death to the IDF” are inflammatory and can be perceived as inciting violence, which risks alienating or threatening Jewish communities, given the IDF’s role in Israeli society. More measured critiques, such as calling for investigations into IDF war crimes or advocating for a ceasefire, are less likely to be seen as antisemitic because they focus on accountability rather than destruction.
Message to @chiefrabbi:
Criticizing the IDF’s actions does not equate to attacking Jews. The IDF, as Israel’s military, is a state institution responsible for specific policies and operations, such as the Gaza conflict, which has drawn global condemnation for its humanitarian impact. Holding the IDF accountable for alleged war crimes or excessive force—consistent with UN reports and international law—targets government actions, not Jewish identity. Antisemitism involves prejudice against Jews as a people, not scrutiny of a nation’s military conduct. Conflating the two risks stifling legitimate debate about human rights and international law, which is essential for justice and peace.
4. Is This Incitement to Violence?
Incitement to violence involves speech that directly encourages illegal violent acts with a clear intent to provoke imminent lawless action, as defined by legal standards like the UK’s Public Order Act 1986 or the US’s Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) test. Let’s assess Bob Vylan’s chants:
Here
Legal Threshold: In the UK, incitement to violence requires intent to cause harm and a likelihood that the speech will lead to immediate violence. The “Death to the IDF” chant, while inflammatory, does not explicitly call for festivalgoers to commit violent acts. It targets a foreign military, not individuals present at the event. Bobby Vylan’s remark about using “violence” as a language is vague and could be interpreted as rhetorical rather than a direct call to action. However, Avon and Somerset Police are investigating the performance as a “public order incident” to determine if it meets the threshold for hate crimes or incitement.
Here
Context: The chants occurred at a music festival, not a political rally, and there’s no evidence they led to immediate violence. However, the emotional weight of calling for “death” to a military force, especially in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, could be seen as normalizing violent rhetoric, particularly given the large audience and live broadcast.
Here
Perception: The Israeli Embassy and UK officials, including Keir Starmer, labeled the chants as “hate speech” and potentially inciting violence. The visceral nature of the language, combined with the festival’s association with peace, amplified concerns about its impact on Jewish attendees or viewers.
Here
Conclusion: While the chants are provocative and could be interpreted as endorsing violence in a rhetorical sense, they likely fall short of legal incitement due to the lack of a direct call to immediate action. However, their inflammatory nature justifies the police investigation, as they could contribute to a broader climate of hostility.
5. Should the BBC Have Stopped the Broadcast ASAP?
The BBC faced significant criticism for livestreaming Bob Vylan’s performance on iPlayer, which included the controversial chants. Here’s an analysis of whether they should have stopped the broadcast immediately:
Arguments for Stopping the Broadcast:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
Editorial Responsibility: The BBC, as a publicly funded broadcaster, has a duty to uphold editorial standards that avoid promoting hate speech or incitement. The chants, labeled “deeply offensive” by the BBC itself, risked alienating viewers and normalizing extremist rhetoric. Ofcom, the UK’s broadcasting regulator, stated the BBC “clearly has questions to answer” about its procedures.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
Real-Time Monitoring: The BBC issued a warning on screen about “very strong and discriminatory language” during the livestream, indicating awareness of the content’s sensitivity. Critics, including Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, argued the broadcast should have been cut immediately, given the potential for harm.
Here
Public Reaction: The backlash, including complaints from the Campaign Against Antisemitism and a mother distressed by the impact on her son, underscored the broadcast’s real-world consequences. Continuing the stream amplified the chants’ reach, potentially exacerbating tensions.
Arguments Against Stopping the Broadcast:
Here
Freedom of Expression: The BBC stated it “respects freedom of expression” but opposes incitement to violence. Cutting the broadcast mid-performance could be seen as censorship, stifling political speech. Glastonbury’s history of activism supports allowing artists to express controversial views, provided they don’t cross legal boundaries.
Here
Logistical Challenges: The BBC noted the performance was a “live situation,” suggesting real-time editorial decisions are complex. Stopping a broadcast abruptly requires clear evidence of illegality, which may not have been immediately apparent during the set.
Here
Contextual Nuance: The chants were part of a broader performance addressing social issues, and some argue the BBC should have allowed the full context to be seen, with appropriate warnings, to foster debate rather than suppress it.
Here
Conclusion: In hindsight, the BBC admitted it “should have pulled the stream” due to the “utterly unacceptable” and “antisemitic” nature of the comments. Given the inflammatory language and the BBC’s responsibility to avoid broadcasting potentially harmful content, stopping the broadcast would have been prudent to prevent amplifying divisive rhetoric. However, the decision to continue may reflect the challenges of real-time moderation and a commitment to free expression, balanced against public backlash.
6. Should It Have Been Allowed on BBC iPlayer?
The BBC decided not to make Bob Vylan’s performance available on demand via iPlayer, a decision widely supported by critics of the chants. Here’s an evaluation:
Reasons Against iPlayer Availability:
Here
Hate Speech Concerns: The BBC labeled the chants “deeply offensive” and “antisemitic,” stating they had “no place on our airwaves”. Allowing the performance on iPlayer would have prolonged exposure to content deemed harmful, especially given the backlash from political leaders and Jewish advocacy groups.
Here
Public Sensitivity: The decision to remove the performance aligned with public and governmental pressure, including from Keir Starmer and Lisa Nandy, who demanded explanations for the initial broadcast. Making it available on demand could have escalated the controversy.
Here
Regulatory Scrutiny: Ofcom’s inquiry into the BBC’s handling of the broadcast underscored the need for caution. Keeping the performance off iPlayer mitigated further regulatory and public criticism.
Reasons for iPlayer Availability:
Here
Transparency and Context: Allowing the performance on iPlayer with appropriate warnings could have provided transparency, enabling viewers to assess the content themselves. The BBC’s initial warning during the livestream suggests a willingness to contextualize controversial material rather than suppress it.
Here
Cultural Significance: Glastonbury is a platform for artistic expression, and Bob Vylan’s performance, while controversial, reflected a broader pro-Palestinian sentiment at the festival. Excluding it from iPlayer could be seen as erasing a significant cultural moment.
Here
Conclusion: The BBC’s decision to exclude the performance from iPlayer was justified, given the chants’ inflammatory nature and the broadcaster’s responsibility to avoid perpetuating content labeled as hate speech. However, this decision risks accusations of censorship, highlighting the tension between editorial responsibility and free expression.
7. Is It Ever Acceptable to Criticize Jews?
Here
Here
Criticizing “Jews” as a group is a fraught issue due to the historical and ongoing prevalence of antisemitism. The acceptability depends on the context, intent, and specificity of the criticism:
Why It’s Generally Unacceptable:
Here
Collective Blame: Criticizing Jews as a monolithic group often perpetuates stereotypes and holds individuals accountable for actions they don’t control, a hallmark of antisemitism. For example, blaming Jews collectively for Israel’s policies violates the IHRA definition, as it conflates a diverse religious/ethnic group with a nation-state.
Here
Historical Context: Antisemitic tropes, such as those rooted in medieval blood libels or 20th-century conspiracy theories, have fueled violence and discrimination. Broad criticisms of Jews risk echoing these harmful narratives, especially in polarized times.
Here
Impact: Generalizations about Jews can alienate and threaten communities, particularly when paired with inflammatory rhetoric, as seen in the distress caused by Bob Vylan’s chants among some Jewish viewers.
When Criticism Might Be Acceptable:
Here
Specificity: Criticism directed at specific individuals or groups within the Jewish community, based on their actions rather than their identity, can be legitimate. For example, criticizing a Jewish politician’s policies or a specific organization’s actions is acceptable if it avoids ethnic/religious generalizations.
Here
Context of Debate: In academic or theological discussions, critiquing aspects of Jewish culture, religion, or history can be acceptable if done respectfully and without prejudice. For instance, debating interpretations of Jewish law or historical events within scholarly contexts is distinct from targeting Jews as a group.
Here
Self-Criticism: Jewish individuals or communities may engage in internal critiques, such as debates over religious practices or political stances, which are part of cultural discourse and not inherently antisemitic.
Here
Conclusion: Broadly criticizing Jews as a group is rarely acceptable due to its potential to perpetuate antisemitic stereotypes and collective blame. Legitimate criticism must be specific, evidence-based, and avoid targeting Jewish identity. The Bob Vylan case illustrates this nuance—their chants targeted the IDF, not Jews explicitly, but the inflammatory language risked being perceived as antisemitic by association.
8. Is Bob Vylan Now Banned from America? Have Their Visas Been Revoked?
Yes, Bob Vylan’s US visas have been revoked, effectively banning them from entering the United States for their planned tour in October 2025. US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau announced on X on June 30, 2025, that the State Department revoked the visas “in light of their hateful tirade at Glaston bury, including leading the crowd in death chants.” He added, “Foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country”. The band was scheduled to perform in cities like Spokane, Washington, and Los Angeles starting October 24, 2025.
Why Were Their Visas Revoked?:
Here
Perceived Incitement: The US government viewed the “Death to the IDF” chant as glorifying violence and promoting hatred, aligning with its aggressive visa restriction policies for alleged support of terrorism or antisemitism.
Here
Political Pressure: The revocation followed intense international backlash, including from the Israeli Embassy and UK officials, which likely influenced the US decision to act swiftly.
Here
Precedent: The US has previously revoked visas for individuals deemed to promote controversial or extremist views, particularly in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
This action has significant implications for the band, as it cancels their US tour and limits their international reach, reflecting the broader geopolitical sensitivities surrounding their performance.
9. Responses to Bob Vylan’s Chants
Below is a detailed summary of the responses from various stakeholders, incorporating relevant X posts where applicable:
BBC News Response (@bbcnews):
Here
The BBC initially livestreamed Bob Vylan’s performance with a warning about “very strong and discriminatory language”. However, on June 30, 2025, the BBC issued a statement admitting it “should have pulled the stream” during the performance, describing the chants as “utterly unacceptable” and “antisemitic”. The broadcaster regretted not cutting the feed, citing the challenges of live situations, and confirmed the performance would not be available on iPlayer. Ofcom’s inquiry and pressure from government officials, including Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, prompted this apology.
@BBCBreaking
posted on X, “BBC says it should have pulled live stream of Bob Vylan performance at Glastonbury over ‘deeply offensive’ comments”.Here
Glastonbury Festival Response (Glastonbury): Glastonbury organizers, including Emily Eavis, issued a statement on Instagram on June 29, 2025, expressing that they were “appalled” by Bob Vylan’s chants, which “very much crossed a line.” They emphasized that the festival stands “against all forms of war and terrorism” and has “no place for antisemitism, hate speech, or incitement to violence.” The statement acknowledged that with nearly 4,000 performances, not all views align with the festival’s ethos of “hope, unity, peace, and love”.
@BBCBreaking
reported, “Glastonbury Festival says it is ‘appalled’ by punk duo Bob Vylan’s chants about Israeli military”.Here
UK Government Response: Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the chants as “appalling hate speech,” criticizing the BBC for broadcasting them and questioning the due diligence process. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy pressed BBC Director-General Tim Davie for an explanation, and Health Secretary Wes Streeting called the chants “appalling,” noting the irony of such rhetoric at a music festival given the Nova festival attack. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp went further, urging police to investigate and prosecute the BBC. The government’s response reflected cross-party condemnation, with Tory leader Kemi Badenoch calling the chants “grotesque”.
Here
American Government Response: The US response was swift and punitive, with Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau announcing the revocation of Bob Vylan’s visas on June 30, 2025, citing their “hateful tirade”. US Ambassador to the UK Warren Stephens called the chants a “disgrace” and condemned them as “hateful incitement” and “tolerance of antisemitism”. The Trump administration’s harsh stance aligned with its broader policy of restricting entry for those perceived to promote violence or antisemitism.
Here
Israeli Response: The Israeli Embassy in the UK expressed being “deeply disturbed by the inflammatory and hateful rhetoric” at Glastonbury, arguing that chants like “Death to the IDF” and “From the river to the sea” advocate for Israel’s dismantling and implicitly call for the elimination of Jewish self-determination. Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel and Minister for Social Equality May Golan condemned the performance, with Golan referencing the Nova festival attack to highlight the insensitivity of the chants. Israel’s Foreign Ministry posted graphic footage of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on X to underscore the emotional weight of such rhetoric.
Here
Palestinian Response: The provided references do not include direct statements from Palestinian officials or organizations specifically addressing Bob Vylan’s chants. However, pro-Palestinian activists and groups, such as UK Screen Industry, defended the chants, arguing that “Death to the IDF” is not antisemitic but a call to dismantle a military accused of war crimes. The Celebrities4Palestine account on Instagram praised Bob Vylan for stepping in to voice pro-Palestinian sentiments, suggesting their actions resonated with supporters of the Palestinian cause. The broader context of pro-Palestinian activism at Glastonbury, including Kneecap’s performance and Nadine Shah’s reading of an Artists for Palestine UK letter, indicates strong support among some festivalgoers and artists.
Here
Bob Vylan’s Response (
@BobbyVylan
): Bobby Vylan addressed the backlash on Instagram on June 29, 2025, posting, “I said what I said,” alongside a statement defending political activism. He noted being “inundated” with messages of “support and hatred” and called for a change in foreign policy, emphasizing the importance of inspiring young people to speak out. He also shared a photo eating vegan ice cream, captioning it, “While Zionists are crying on socials, I’ve just had late night (vegan) ice cream,” indicating defiance in the face of criticism.10. Critical Reflection and Broader Implications
Bob Vylan’s chants at Glastonbury 2025 highlight the complex interplay between free speech, political activism, and the boundaries of acceptable discourse in public forums. The controversy reflects deeper tensions in the Israel-Palestine conflict, where language and symbolism carry profound emotional and political weight. The chants’ inflammatory nature—particularly “Death to the IDF”—escalated the situation, prompting reactions ranging from criminal investigations to visa revocations. While the band’s intent appeared to be advocating for Palestinian rights, the choice of language and setting amplified perceptions of hostility, particularly among Jewish communities and Israeli supporters.
The BBC’s handling of the broadcast underscores the challenges of moderating live content, especially at an event like Glastonbury, known for its activist spirit. The festival’s condemnation, while distancing itself from the chants, also acknowledged the diversity of views among its 4,000 performers, highlighting the difficulty of balancing free expression with preventing harm. The UK and US governments’ responses reflect a broader trend of cracking down on rhetoric perceived as inciting violence or antisemitism, though this risks stifling legitimate criticism of state actions.
The lack of a direct Palestinian response in the references limits insight into their perspective, but the support from pro-Palestinian groups suggests the chants resonated with those advocating for Gaza. Conversely, the Israeli response underscores the sensitivity of targeting the IDF in a context where it is seen as integral to national identity.
Ultimately, the Bob Vylan incident raises critical questions about how artists, broadcasters, and governments navigate the line between protest and provocation, especially in a polarized global climate. The fallout—visa revocations, police investigations, and public apologies—demonstrates the high stakes of such performances and the need for nuanced dialogue about free speech, antisemitism, and human rights.
Paul (Poison Fish) Manjyu Woodman
