Several countries, including the Netherlands, Slovenia, Iceland, Ireland, Spain, and Belgium, have either already decided or heavily hinted at leaving the Eurovision Song Contest if Israel is allowed to compete once again. This marks the first time since the beginning of the Gazan genocide that national broadcasters in Europe are making a solid stand against Israel’s continued presence and outlandish influence over the contest.
Every May brings us here in Europe the annual spectacle of the Eurovision Song Contest. Eurovision is, for many, a true event each year and we excitedly gather with our friends to watch the battling entries duke it out to find Europe’s best song. The contest was founded in the years following the Second World War, a divided Europe reflecting upon the devastation of the conflict decided to come together through music. Over the decades since then the contest has grown to include more and more countries and has undergone several reforms to maintain a fair and apolitical culture. There is one thorn in the paw of the proverbial lion however, the continued presence of Israel in the contest.
Israel has been a part of Eurovision for decades, first winning the show in 1978. It would go on to win a further three times and consistently place highly most years. Since the heightened attention on Israeli apartheid in the wake of the genocide in Gaza, many viewers have grown ever more uncomfortable with their presence in the contest. Many cite the swift and decisive action taken against Russia’s ability to participate following the beginning of the war in Ukraine as an example to follow.
How has Israel still been allowed to participate?
The EBU (the European Broadcasting Union) very quickly indefinitely banned Russian participation in the contest and this has led many to question why Israel has been allowed to remain. There are some clear reasons for this, albeit very questionable ones. Israel, unlike Russia, has positioned itself internationally as a close ally to Western nations like the United States and the UK. This outward self-branding as a liberal democracy, in contrast to Russia’s political positioning, has allowed Israel to continue their oppression of Palestinians with little scrutiny from the West. This context has meant the EBU, like most European governments and institutions, has been incredibly lethargic when approaching the question of how a country actively conducting a genocide can remain a part of a contest founded to foster peace and international cooperation.
Another reason is that the contest’s main sponsor is the misleadingly named Moroccan Oil, an Israeli cosmetics line that trades off the reputation of Moroccan argan oil. It is worth noting that this brand’s operations are one of many aspects of contemporary Israeli soft diplomacy that seek to claim Arab and other Middle Eastern products, practices and dishes as Israeli to further lay claim to the stolen lands and heritage of Palestine. Moroccan Oil provides big bucks for the contest, and thus Israel’s reach into the competition is deep and structural. As of September 2025, Moroccan Oil is still placed as the primary sponsor for the 2026 contest.
What are countries doing about it?
Given the political and economic reasons why Israel has been able to remain a part of the contest, it is significant that participating broadcasters are finally reconsidering the ethics of platforming a genocidal nation as part of an institution of European unity. With the Netherlands making a definitive choice to withdraw should Israel remain, and Spain going in the same direction, the tide is starting to turn. Spain and the Netherlands actually contribute significantly to the contest financially. Spain is one of the “big five” contributing nations that automatically qualifies for the final each year and the Netherlands is just behind them as the sixth largest contributor financially. As we know, money talks. Losing the Spanish and Dutch financial contributions would undeniably impact the show, and if a domino effect takes place with more nations withdrawing it would have an insurmountable impact on the contest.
This is actually not the first time countries have taken issue with Israel’s inclusion in the show. Lebanon was supposed to debut in the contest in 2005 but withdrew due to Israeli participation and several other countries in the Middle East who are eligible to participate have refused to, in protest of the ongoing apartheid.
Eurovision and Politics
While the contest makes a point to describe and define itself as apolitical, we know this is not really true. Year on year the usual suspects vote heavily for neighbouring countries that share similar values. The most classic example of this is the continual trend of Greek and Cypriot juries awarding each other’s entries the coveted 12 points. It was with this trend in mind that the contest decided to switch up how votes are calculated and split out jury and public voting about 10 years ago.
Further to this the very ethos of Eurovision is one of liberal values and tolerance, something that is inherently political. The show’s clear positioning on LGBTQ+ inclusion has even caused the occasional spat between the EBU and some of the more socially conservative participants in the past. This is because Eurovision’s politics is clear, music is for everyone and everyone must be welcomed. This does not mean however that they don’t fall short of this in practice. The contest has failed to address human rights concerns in host nations. This is something the 2012 winner, Loreen spoke out about during her first entry in Baku, Azerbaijan. Eurovision has also made a clear point of discouraging protest at the show and forbidding artists from using their time on stage to make any statements that ruffle too many feathers. In 2019 the Icelandic band Hatari were heavily scrutinised by the contest for their intention to publicly show support for Palestine. They would go on to wave the Palestinian flag during the live results, and were subsequently fined.
Eurovision is also a way for countries to actively brand themselves and shape their perception on the international stage. The 2016 winner Jamala, from Ukraine, performed a song that explicitly recounted Russian presence in Crimea and the forced exile of Crimean Tartars by Stalin in the 1940s. Subsequent Ukrainian entries have furthered these messages, albeit often more subtly. The Israeli entry in 2024 initially was very clearly about the October 7th attacks, eventually being rewritten to sanitise it just enough for it to be allowed. Eurovision is extremely political.
Why Israel needs Eurovision
Eurovision has become an integral part of Israeli soft diplomacy, particularly in recent years as wider public scrutiny has intensified. Last year many viewers were shocked to see that Israel very nearly won the contest despite many viewers choosing to change the channel when the Israeli entry performed and the song receiving only a very modest jury vote. This is because the EBU introduced a new rule recently that allowed individuals from outside broadcasting nations to vote. Social media was flooded with Zionists across the globe proudly boasting about blindly voting for Israel and even fraudulently voting for them across borders. Several participating broadcasters have called for an investigation into fraudulent voting to prevent this again. We also need to consider another factor though, those who support the Zionist politics of Israel will vote for them regardless of whether or not they actually liked the song.
As someone who does not support what Israel is doing, my vote would be split between 24 other countries (26 compete in the final with a rule forbidding you to vote for your own country). I watch the show and decide which song, not which country, deserves the win. This means that votes for Israel are artificially inflated by the virtue that people vote for them politically and unwaveringly. It has become a matter of soft diplomacy on Israel’s part to maintain a presence at Eurovision because their inflated public vote count espouses an image of a nation that is not a pariah on the global stage. With their presence at Eurovision they get to pat themselves on the back and say to the world “hey look, everyone likes us so we can’t possibly be guilty of a violent decades long genocide”.
Israel and Pink Washing at Eurovision
Eurovision is extremely important and integral to many members of the LGBTQ+ community. For decades the contest has been synonymous with queer culture and this has become a hallmark aspect of Eurovision’s own DNA. Israel has historically made a point of promoting their own stances on LGBTQ+ rights to further garner favour with liberal western democracies. We’ve all heard by now the old chestnut thrown at gay people who support the liberation of Palestine, that if you were gay in Gaza they’d kill you. Not only is this not true, but it is also a pathetic straw man that places gay people at odds with dying children. Israel’s presence at Eurovision, an inherently queer event, has further allowed them to pink wash over their apartheid in Palestine.
No more heavy handed was this than with the Israel 2023 Eurovision song that was literally about unicorns… With a thick glossy coat of artificial Zionist girlbossery the song did indeed resonate with some queer people. This was particularly true of some white gay men who can tend to have a “secure your own oxygen mask first” approach to social justice. The unicorn has been adopted as a symbol of the LGBTQ+ community and the Israeli delegation knows this. By sending entries that lean intentionally into queer language and symbolism they again encourage queer people to view them as justified in their actions in Palestine.
So… what now?
The EBU’s participating national broadcasters have until mid-December to decide if they want to go ahead with a 2026 participation. With the tide seemingly starting to turn, and a growing number of fans disengaging from Eurovision, there is a chance enough pressure on the EBU would force them to remove Israel from the show. Many point to their decisive approach to Russia as a clear roadmap on how to handle unethical participants. Other viewers have already made the choice to boycott the show until Israel is no longer a part of the contest, and Israeli sponsorships are ceased. Additional pressure will also come from the recent formal recognition of the Palestinian genocide by the United Nations. Seeing a large multi-national organisation make a statement of recognition like this will only add fuel to the fire as the EBU grapples with the continued presence of Israel at Eurovision.
On a personal level, I truly hope that Israel is banned indefinitely from Eurovision. The contest has become an integral part of European unity and peace building. With Israel allowed to continue to compete it kills the joy in a show that is supposed to be exciting and fun. We cannot forget that the show was conceived in the wake of the bloodiest conflict this continent has ever known, one in which we collectively said “never again” to genocide. Now in one of our most beloved international institutions, we are, year on year, subject to a posturing bully state on the Eurovision stage. This is not what the ethos of Eurovision is. Earlier this year as the final votes were counted my stomach dropped as it was revealed that Israel had won the public vote. How in a show that literally exists as a testament to refusing to regress to our violent and genocidal origins are we seeing a nation that is right now still waging genocide be allowed to compete and very nearly win?
Images provided by Depositphotos
