Whose Rage Counts? Art, Outrage, and the Weaponisation of Sensitivity. A Conversation with Declan Welsh

“Why is saying ‘death to the IDF’ policed more harshly than actual war crimes?”

In the shadow of Glastonbury’s official statement distancing itself from artist-led protest, and amid attempts to criminalise dissent on British soil, a sharper question is being asked: Why does a chant provoke more outrage than a missile? Declan Welsh isn’t here to soften that question. Through Welsh’s searing social commentary and unapologetic clarity, he’s become one of the most unflinching voices challenging the moral inconsistencies of this political moment. From the public backlash against artists speaking up to the wider silencing of pro-Palestinian resistance, Declan speaks to the raw hypocrisy of a world more shaken by stage slogans than by state-sanctioned slaughter.

We caught up with him to explore what it means to speak truth when institutions demand palatability, how art becomes a battleground, and whether strategy is solidarity or suppression. This is a conversation about language, power, and who gets to define the line between protest and provocation.

Your recent Instagram story cuts straight to the double standard at the heart of this moment, that some seem more outraged by a chant on a stage than by the mass killing of civilians. You laid it bare: if offensive words deserve punishment, what do state-led atrocities deserve?

I think the reason that many people see condemnations of someone saying something like “death to the IDF” two years into a genocide as such a slap in the face is because it shows a double standard. There is the red line of hypothetical emotional violence to Israelis, which can never be crossed. You cannot ever advocate, even hypothetically, for violence against even just the Israelis directly engaged in violence towards Palestinians, not because you are likely to cause harm to Israelis by saying this (Hamas and the Ayatollah aren’t sat watching Glastonbury going “good idea Kneecap”) but because you will hypothetically cause emotional pain to Jewish people by the fact your statement could, hypothetically, lead to harm. No actual harm is required in this instance; it’s a very strict rule which prioritises sensitivity. But you can materially harm Palestinians and say things that lead to material harm, and this is not a red line. There’s nuance. You can say “I am going to exterminate Palestinians” and then exterminate Palestinians; then an arrest warrant can be issued for you for war crimes and you can be put on trial for genocide; and the same people who feel disgusted at living in a Britain where people chant “death to the people who killed all those children” will say that, all of a sudden, nuance is required. If you want to be sensitive, be sensitive. If you want to talk about nuance and facts, we can do that. But you can’t pick and choose who gets to be wrapped in cotton wool and who we have to have “tough discussions” about. Especially when we are being sensitive over the group who are actively committing genocide against the other.

What do the people who killed all these innocent men, women and children deserve? I’m not sure I have the authority to answer that question. That’s for the people who live in a future democratic state with equal rights for all in Palestine to decide. Examples that have some merit in the past would be South Africa’s TRC and Nuremberg. The problems with both are numerous, but they are models you could improve with solid principle foundations: accountability and the restoration of trust in institutions that have been weaponised against the oppressed. These are pretty generous punishments for people committing the worst war crimes imaginable, and so I may be out of line to even suggest these. But it’s nice to imagine an end to this that has as little violence as possible, purely for the people of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem’s sake, because the last two years have just been so relentlessly violent for the Palestinians. I think they would enjoy peace if they were allowed to have it.

You’ve written powerfully about the moral imbalance in how outrage is distributed. How do you think we got to a place where the chant ‘Death to the IDF’ prompts legal review, while the killing of journalists, medics, and children barely raises political consequences?

Because international law is dead, and the United States killed it. Kosovo, through to Afghanistan and Iraq. You see, previously agreed upon standards (don’t invade sovereign nations; no regime change; you can’t just bomb a country before they’ve even planned to attack you) go out the window. And even before then, it’s a nice but flimsy idea that requires everyone to agree to be held to a standard which is often against the most powerful nations’ interests. It’s in Israel’s interest to bomb Gaza until they ethnically cleanse it of Palestinians, and then they can get that land and those resources. They can rebuild in a huge project that will earn lots of people a great deal of money. They can have access to new places for ports and trade routes. They can secure their borders against Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Why would Israel agree to rules that no one can enforce that limit its ability to do what it exists to do (cleanse Israel of as many Palestinians as is necessary to form a Jewish majority state throughout Palestine)? There is a culture of utter impunity among the West and its allies, and this is but a particularly gruesome chapter in a vast book of horror. Artists saying offensive things are prosecuted because they can be. They aren’t powerful. There is no consequence to pursuing this, but worst case scenario, being a bit embarrassed in court. Best case scenario, you win and shut them up. A no-lose situation for a government that wants to shut an artist up. If you want to hold Israel (or the UK, or the USA) accountable, there’s an entire global geopolitical infrastructure and military industry that they are central to. You can’t hold what you can’t touch.

Has there been any pushback against what you posted some as some may say it inflames, others (like myself) may say it clarifies. What do you say to people who accuse this kind of language of being too provocative or “escalating” the situation?

Is my language escalating the situation? I guess that’s the intention. We are not doing enough. No one is. Not even artists saying things on stage. If someone worries I am escalating, I would ask why they are committed to endless nothing? To a forever lack of response as the death toll hits 6 figures minimum, with probably between 40-60k children among them. We are far too lazy, far too comfortable, and we have made our peace far too quickly with what is going on in Gaza. If what I say upsets you, I don’t think you really are upset with me. I think you are upset at all the children dying, and your solution has been to ignore it or pretend it isn’t happening, and you don’t like that what I’ve said has called your attention to the actually awful thing. I get that. But unfortunately, this is happening to human beings who are just like me and you, and if this were happening to us, you’d understand how urgent the matter was, so what makes these people any different? They aren’t.

You mention moral consistency, how the same people who are enraged by a lyric stay silent through sustained state violence. Is that inconsistency ignorance, or something more willful, in your view?

A wilful ignorance is probably the best way to describe it. Here’s an analogy:

You go to a coffee shop and you see a barista who you think is beautiful. You are enamoured with them. As you order your coffee, you notice they are making eye contact, they remember your name, and they laugh at your jokes. You might think “this person is showing interest” or “I am picking up a vibe”, even though looking at someone in the eyes, remembering someone’s name and being pleasant to customers are all job requirements of every barista who has ever existed. You’re not stupid, but you wanted a certain truth so you ignored the more convincing evidence to the contrary of your desired belief and you took the slim bits of evidence you could find to support your conclusion even if there’s other, better, explanations for why a barista laughed politely at your joke than that they are in love with you. You might be right, you’re probably wrong, but the issue isn’t with your conclusion; it’s with the way you’ve processed information.

This is the issue among people who aren’t actively malicious. Some people hate Palestinians and want them to die. Some people don’t care if they live or die. Most people I think are finding enough evidence to convince themselves that they aren’t dying; or that they have to die; or that they’re dying mostly because of Hamas, or some other version of events that lets them keep believing that Israel (and by extension, ourselves, the US and the West as a whole) are still, more or less, the good guys. It’s a tough realisation that 1) there are no good or bad guys, that’s Marvel, not real life, and 2) if there were good and bad guys, the USA, UK and Israeli armies’ civilian death count dwarves most of the nations we would consider “bad guys”.

Do you think artists are being criminalised not because of what they said, but because of who they said it to and where they said it?

I think Starmer’s Labour is trying to prove its credentials to reform voters. That’s it. They don’t believe in anything. The proscribing of Palestine action; the public criticisms of Kneecap; why should a prime minister be talking about the fucking Glastonbury line up? Or the first minister for TRNSMT, for all that matter. I hope artists will either be left alone to make art or will have an actual trial where someone gets to try and state why calling for the death of a foreign army is a hate crime. Because I simply don’t think saying death to the IDF is inherently anti-Semitic. Death to ISIS isn’t inherently Islamophobic. If someone said death to Hamas on state, there would be no legal action whatsoever. These are armed groups. He very specifically does not say death to Jewish people or even Israelis. If someone said death to Hamas (with a civilian death count of roughly 700-900), there would be no issue, but death to the IDF (with a civilian death count at 100k plus) is antisemitic? I just don’t think it is. If saying that is antisemitic, then the IDF are all Jewish people. I think that’s antisemitic. What does a Jewish person in New York’s opinion have to do with the actions of a foreign military? Whatever that opinion is, it isn’t represented by the actions of a foreign army to them. Why are people worried about how the army killing more children than any other feels more than the fact that they’re killing so many children? What the fuck do people who drone strike schools for a living give a fuck about what a guy on a stage says? What’s going on? None of it makes any sense outside of the context of a pr move for a Labour government that will lose the next election even if Kier Starmer cures cancer himself. They are, as always, learning the absolute worst lesson it’s possible to learn in any given situation is the Labour Party. Our leader is seen as a spineless suit who believes in nothing. Quick, let’s change his opinion on immigration and trans rights for the 100th time! Morons. All of this stems from their desperation. And nothing they do will prevent a reform victory. They’ve already guaranteed that through their campaigns and governance under Starmer.

Glastonbury, say they stand for peace, unity, and love, but they condemned the recent remarks made and reminded artists there’s ‘no place’ for incitement. Do you see that as a defence of public safety, or a retreat into PR-safe politics?

Listen, I’m never gonna sit here and condemn a guy being confrontational, deliberately, on a huge platform to try and raise the floor of where people are prepared to go. It’s an artistic expression, not a manifesto. He isn’t planning any armed activity. This is about pushing a boundary. Everyone says free Palestine, but what does that actually mean? Is it comfortable? Is it cosy? Peaceful? Has any liberation struggle been? The point of saying that is to make people think about that. To go further as a way to show people how little they’ve been saying. And Glastonbury are a business. One that trades on culture and has to answer to certain sponsors, and some extent, plays the ball down the middle. They are gonna say what they have to say. He said what he felt he had to.

In your work, you’ve consistently pushed back against the criminalisation of resistance, whether that’s through protest, writing songs, or speaking truth. With Glastonbury distancing itself from unapologetic protest, what does this moment say about the role of artists and creatives right now? Do you see this as a turning point or just another mask slipping?

I think we can get a bit obsessed with the artist’s role here. It’s not that there’s nothing important, but there are two things:

1) Art predates every single economic system. As soon as we have recorded history we have art. And it’s art about the inner world and emotional experiences, as well as stories and people. It’s a record of human history described, primarily, through emotion. So art is ever present regardless of the economic system.

BUT

2) Art is shaped by the economic system we live in. As is the role of the artist. Art exists to make money. Artists need to make money to keep being full time artists. So art has to be marketable art and artists have to be marketable.

So my point is basically that 1) art isn’t inherently revolutionary or counterrevolutionary, it seems it can be neither or both or one or the other. And 2) that the economic system does shape what kind of art and artists exist under it. So if you are successful under capitalism as an artist, it is because your art or your persona as an artist has been monetisable. It’s just a bit of a weird grey area morally, where if you are successful because you support Palestine, that means, to some extent, you’ve been able to effectively strategise your business to earn a good living from showing solidarity to people going through genocide. It’s not inherently wrong, but I think it is something all artists have to wrestle with. You know you aren’t going to cause the revolution (that’s going to be actual organisers, workers, people who can shut down industry), and so what are you actually achieving by your actions? If all that’s happening is that your bank balance and followers go up, I think that is hard to justify. So the art itself and the things you materially do are what’s important. Not what you say.

This isn’t just about lyrics or legal threats. It’s about what we protect and what we let slip. Declan Welsh reminds us that when the law fails to uphold justice, and institutions flinch from the truth, it falls to artists, writers, and the enraged to hold the line. Not with palatable protest, but with purpose. You can follow Declan Welsh here.

Photography from @harrisonwreid