It is regrettable that Israel's Incubator Theatre has had to pull out of its planned run of performances at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe.

Protests related to events in Gaza had already forced hip-hop opera The City from its expected venue. Now, unable to find an alternative home, the theatre group has been forced to cancel the entire run.

Saying it is unfortunate that the show cannot go ahead is not the same as saying the protests were wrong. The performance was being staged with funding from the Israeli Government. This made it a legitimate target for dissent, in the eyes of those objecting to that same government's military onslaught on Palestinians in Gaza.

A spokesman for the Fringe implies performers' right to freedom of expression is being curtailed. It certainly appears that way. But equivalent performers in Gaza are denied that right too, by the Egyptian and Israeli blockade, let alone by the likely impossibility of rehearsal or performance in the context of military threat. So it is naive to suggest that art and politics can be separated.

The director of the Edinburgh International Festival, Sir Jonathan Mills, implies they can when he draws a distinction between protesting against the government and protesting against an arts organisation. This case seems flawed, and it is perhaps dispiriting to hear someone so senior arguing in such terms.

Objecting to the current actions of the Israeli government is understandable, Sir Jonathan says. Whether overtly political or not, international artistic events have political impact, just as sporting ones do.

The absence of an overt agenda is not the lack of an agenda. Acceptance of money from the Israeli government is, it can be argued, a tacit acceptance of that government's actions; therefore, that can make it legitimate to protest against the relevant organisation or body.

Sir Jonathan asks whether the government-funded Royal Shakespeare Company could have faced protests over the Iraq war. The answer to this is: "Yes, why not?"

He is correct about one point. "If we close down that space, what is left? There is no dialogue and that is no good for anyone," he said.

He also appears to suggest those questioning Israel's actions should demonstrate against its government, then walk in and see a show its government has funded. Indeed, people should have had that choice.

Arts events such as the Edinburgh Festival can contribute to international understanding by bringing people together. Dialogue is always superior to silence, so it would have been better if the show had gone ahead.

Governments should ultimately take action over the conflict in Gaza, but when the international community appears powerless, dissent is natural. What else are people to do about the events there?

Protest is as legitimate as performance and to argue that artistic endeavour is somehow above the fray is to deny and diminish the power of art itself.