Eurovision once symbolised a Europe committed to peace, dialogue, and cultural exchange. It was not born as a glitter show. It was created in 1956 as a deliberate peace‑building project — a cultural instrument to rebuild trust in a Europe shattered by war.
EBU, the European Broadcasting Union own historical summaries describe Eurovision idea as:
“a symbol of European unity after the war”
“a cultural bridge between countries that had recently been enemies”
“a peace‑building experiment using television technology”
Academic research confirms this: Eurovision was an early experiment in reconciliation, designed to reduce conflict, not inflame it.
That is why the EBU’s current behaviour is so shocking. An institution founded to promote peace now rewards one war, punishes another, and creates division inside Europe. Here is the background:
The EBU insists Eurovision is “apolitical.” But its actions prove the opposite. Russia remains excluded because of its invasion of Ukraine — a decision many Europeans supported at the time. Yet the same EBU now embraces Israel without hesitation, despite a far broader and more destructive pattern of state violence: its genocide in Gaza, the attack on Iran, the long‑documented system of apartheid, its new selective death penalty, and the ongoing war in Lebanon. The severity of these events is undeniable.
If Russia’s actions justified exclusion, how can Israel’s far more extensive and long‑running policies be compatible with participation in a supposedly values‑based cultural event?
And either human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity are a criterion for exclusion, or they are not.
The EBU has no answer. Instead, it hides behind procedural fog and hopes no one will notice the contradiction. Even major Western media — New York Times, Denmark’s DR, and others — report the controversy but avoid mentioning Russia’s exclusion and the deeper question: Why is Europe applying its principles so selectively? Their silence is not neutrality. It is complicity.
The influence campaigns themselves are well‑documented. A major, just-published New York Times investigation revealed that Israeli state institutions invested significant public funds in shaping Eurovision outcomes. These included coordinated lobbying, diplomatic pressure, and large‑scale promotional campaigns designed to influence both participation rules and televoting results. None of this technically violates Eurovision’s outdated rules, but it exposes how easily a government can manipulate a supposedly neutral cultural event.
Netanyahu has encouraged people to vote 20 times for Israel’s song.
But the deeper scandal lies in the EBU’s financial structure. The organisation depends overwhelmingly on a handful of large public broadcasters — many of them state‑mandated or state‑controlled institutions: Germany (ARD & ZDF), United Kingdom (BBC), France (France Télévisions), Italy (RAI), Spain (RTVE), Sweden (SVT), Switzerland (SRG SSR) and the Netherlands (NPO/AVROTROS)
These broadcasters pay the highest membership fees and purchase the most EBU services. They are the financial backbone of the entire system.
And yet — astonishingly — the EBU has chosen to lose two of these major contributors (Spain and the Netherlands) rather than confront Israel’s participation. Others, including Ireland, Iceland, and Slovenia, have also withdrawn. This is unprecedented. It reveals an institution willing to sacrifice unity, credibility, even its own financial stability and peace to keep one country in the competition.
This cannot be understood outside the broader geopolitical context. There is no public evidence that the United States directly pressured the EBU. But the structural environment makes indirect influence entirely plausible. The large majority of the EBU’s largest contributors are NATO members or close US allies. These broadcasters operate inside a Western security ecosystem where US preferences shape the political climate even without explicit intervention. In such an environment, the EBU’s selective moral outrage — harsh toward Russia, indulgent toward Israel — does not arise in a vacuum.
Europe likes to speak of peace, human rights, and international law. But Eurovision now reveals a continent that cannot apply its own principles even in a song contest. When institutions abandon consistency, they abandon credibility. When they choose apartheid, war and genocide over peace, they lose moral authority.
For these reasons, it is entirely reasonable — indeed necessary — to call on other countries to withdraw. And not only now. Broadcasters should state clearly that they will not participate in 2027 if Israel remains in the competition and/or Russia is allowed in again. Only a collective refusal can force the EBU to confront its own indefensible contradictions.
Until then, Eurovision is not harmless entertainment. It is a political instrument that rewards violence, punishes peace, and undermines the very values Europe claims to stand for.
The conclusion therefore should be pretty obvious:
Morally-inclined people and media: Boycott Eurovision and spread this article as far and wide as you can.