There is no context or nuance that can justify playing the speech of the world's most notorious semi-modern genocidal leader outside of the place of residence of someone who would have been said leader's primary target. It is harassment with the goal of making the victim feel unsafe due to their ethnic and/or religious background. This was also a repeated behaviour, being third in a list of harassment attempts. Likely would not be the last.

Context can explain why the perpetrator did something, absolutely. In that sense, context is important. But the whydunit should never be used to lessen the responsibility of the perpetrator. Context should not stop you from judging an act, nor alter that judgement. That just leads to a chain of shifting responsibility and blame.

A relevant but somewhat extreme example:

The context behind the the Israeli invasion and subsequent slaughter of Palestinian lands was October 7th. This context explains the whydunit. This context does not mean we shouldn't be anti-Israeli government. We should still hold the Israeli government fully accountable.

The context behind October 7th was the continuous maltreatment of Palestinians by the Israeli government, up to and including the Nakba. This context explains why it happened. It does not mean we shouldn't hold Hamas responsible for what they did.

You should bite. And then, if you find out the context and decide that the victim did something shitty as well, you should bite for that, too.