EBU’s decision on Israel can change the contest forever

The Eurovision Song Contest has throughout its history been called Europe’s largest music competition, an arena where national differences can meet in culture and entertainment rather than in political conflicts. In recent years, however, it has become increasingly clear that the contest cannot free itself from the world’s conflicts. The question of Israel’s participation in Eurovision 2026 in Vienna, as well as the EBU’s planned membership vote in November 2025, constitutes one of the contest’s greatest political challenges. Regardless of the outcome, this decision will shape both Eurovision’s future identity and the EBU’s credibility as an international cultural organization.

Political pressure is increasing

The background is well known: several European public service broadcasters, including Spain, the Netherlands, Ireland, Iceland, and Slovenia, have openly threatened to boycott if Israel is allowed to participate in next year’s contest. To exclude a member country, a 75 percent majority is required, which in practice means that the EBU’s membership must take a position on one of the organization’s most sensitive issues ever.

The political pressure is enormous. In many countries, civil society demands that culture can no longer remain separate from geopolitics, but must be used as a tool for sanctions and solidarity. Here, the exclusion of Russia in 2022 serves as a significant precedent. At the same time, critics point out the risk that Eurovision in practice can become an extension of international diplomacy—a place where participating countries are judged not on musical merits but on foreign policy actions.

The paradox: Russia vs. Israel

When Russia was excluded from ESC 2022, the EBU’s justification was clear: a country waging an unjustified war cannot simultaneously participate in Europe’s largest music festival. The decision was made quickly and with broad support from the member countries. At the time, the EBU emphasized that the music competition cannot be separated from international norms and solidarity with the country subjected to aggression.

When it comes to Israel, however, the same principles do not seem to apply. Despite UN resolutions, international criticism, and reports of mass bombings of civilian targets in Gaza, Israel has so far been allowed to continue participating in the contest without formal sanctions. In the eyes of critics, this appears as double standards: why is aggression in Ukraine considered grounds for exclusion, but not aggression in Palestine?

Cultural exchange or image polishing?

At its core, the question concerns how Eurovision’s cultural role is interpreted. Is the contest a neutral platform for cultural exchange, even in times of conflict? Or does participation and visibility become a form of normalization, giving the state the opportunity to appear as a legitimate and accepted actor, even while engaging in war or serious human rights violations?

This dilemma also explains the EBU’s internal division among its member broadcasters. For some, Eurovision represents an opportunity for dialogue, a way to maintain contacts across borders even when diplomatic channels are closed. For others, participation itself is a political stance—a polished facade that can legitimize oppression.

The EBU’s credibility at stake

This inconsistency is a central argument for the countries and movements now demanding Israel’s exclusion. If the EBU does not act consistently, the organization risks losing credibility. The decision to exclude Russia set a precedent—but now this precedent risks being turned against the organization. Why would audiences or member countries perceive ESC as a fair and neutral arena if similar cases are handled differently depending on political relations or Western sympathies?

Advocates for Israel’s participation argue that the situation cannot be fully compared: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was seen as a threat to the entire European security order, while Israel’s war against Gaza is viewed as a more regional conflict. Critics, however, consider the distinction irrelevant—in both cases, serious human rights violations are at stake, and civilians are placed in danger. If the EBU bases its decisions on such distinctions rather than universal principles, the organization may appear politically selective rather than consistent.

The contest’s future

The decision in November will have far-reaching consequences. If Israel is excluded, the EBU will face polarization among its members and accusations of arbitrary action. At the same time, exclusion could strengthen the contest’s credibility in the eyes of the public, who might otherwise perceive the EBU as passive or hypocritical.

If Israel is allowed to participate, the risk of a widespread boycott is high. Several countries could withdraw, weakening the contest’s legitimacy, reducing viewership, and scaring away sponsors. For the host city, Vienna, this also implies organizational uncertainty and increased risks both for security and finances.

A third option is a compromise solution—temporary suspensions, stricter membership rules, or reforms to the decision-making process. Here too, courage is required to deviate from the EBU’s traditional line, where culture and politics have historically been kept ambiguously separate.

Three options and their risks

  1. Exclusion of Israel. This creates a clear precedent and sends a signal that the EBU does not tolerate violations of international law. It strengthens ESC as a responsible organization. At the same time, it opens the door to polarization: which countries will be considered disqualifiable in the future and which not? The risk of double standards is evident.

  3. Allowing Israel’s participation. In the short term, internal division within the EBU is avoided, but the price is boycott by several countries and a credibility crisis in the eyes of the public. ESC risks shrinking to a show for a limited number of countries, undermining the entire concept.

  5. Compromise with reforms. This allows Israel to be temporarily suspended while the EBU uses the crisis to strengthen its rules. In this way, both immediate collapse and the impression of passivity can be avoided. The compromise is, however, credible only if it is supported by a carefully designed reform package that removes the sense of an arbitrary decision.

Need for rule reforms

The most important lesson of this crisis is that the EBU’s current rules are insufficient. In practice, the organization has so far only had guidelines for what can be said on stage, in song lyrics, or by delegates—but not what happens outside the contest arena. The result is a dangerous gray area where decisions can appear politically arbitrary.

Several reforms are needed:

  1. Clear criteria for exclusion. Currently, there is no list of what constitutes “disqualifying behavior.” The new rulebook should cover serious war crimes, systematic human rights violations, and the use of ESC directly for state propaganda. This would create predictability and reduce the risk of arbitrariness.

  3. Temporary suspensions instead of permanent exclusions. Just as sports organizations can suspend countries during conflicts, the EBU should introduce time-limited suspensions. This creates decisiveness while leaving the possibility of returning to normal.

  5. Connection to international law. A member country whose state seriously violates UN resolutions or decisions from the Hague Court should be suspendable. This would give ESC a clearer and more predictable link to international norms.

  7. New decision-making mechanism. Instead of requiring a 75 percent majority in emergencies, the EBU should establish a special crisis committee or a two-step process where the board first gives recommendations that are then approved by members. This allows for faster and more accurate decisions.

  9. Increased transparency. When a boycott or threat of boycott arises, member countries should publicly justify their position. This reduces the risk of behind-closed-doors negotiations and strengthens public trust.

  11. Stricter neutrality on stage. To prevent artists and songs from acting as political messengers, the EBU should tighten rules for lyrics and performances. At the same time, it must be clarified that neutrality does not mean blindness to armed conflicts.

Decisive choices

ESC stands at a crossroads. A decision to exclude Israel without clear reforms may appear as a single political action. Allowing Israel to participate may weaken the contest’s legitimacy. The only sustainable path forward is a compromise that combines clear, time-limited sanctions with a long-term reform package.

The EBU must recognize that ESC can no longer exist in a bubble where music and politics are kept separate. For this reason, the organization must develop rules that protect the contest from being exploited for political interests while ensuring that ongoing aggression is not legitimized.

Only through such a choice can ESC continue to be a credible and significant music competition—a place where the communal power of music is not turned into a tool for political power, but a platform where Europe’s cultural diversity can continue to flourish in a genuine way.

Kommentarer

Skicka en kommentar

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Eurovision är död – länge leve Intervision!

Eurovision Song Contest (ESC) skapades för att hela ett krigshärjat Europa – men har blivit en urvattnad popindustri som gömmer sig bakom en falsk fasad av politiskt neutral underhållning. Två tävlingar, två världar – och ett nytt kallt krig där glitter, konfetti och flagghav används som vapen. När ESC startade 1956 var syftet klart: Europa, som slitits sönder av andra världskriget, skulle återförenas genom musiken. Varje lands bidrag skulle representera dess egen kultur, språk och särart. Det var ett projekt i fredens och försoningens namn, där kulturell identitet sågs som ett medel till gemenskap. ESC var alltså från början ett politiskt projekt – men ett projekt som syftade till fred. Man talade inte om “mjuka värden” i propagandatermer, utan om återförening genom kultur. Det var en radikal tanke: att toner kunde bygga broar där bomber hade rivit ner murar. Men om vi ser på ESC idag, 70 år senare, är bilden nästan den motsatta. Strävan att visa nationell kultur har ersatts av en jak...
Läs mer

Eurovision is dead – long live Intervision!

The Eurovision Song Contest (ESC) was created to heal a war-torn Europe – but has become a watered-down pop industry hiding behind a false façade of politically neutral entertainment. Two contests, two worlds – and a new Cold War where glitter, confetti, and seas of flags are used as weapons. When ESC began in 1956, the purpose was clear: Europe, torn apart by the Second World War, was to be reunited through music. Each country’s entry was to represent its own culture, language, and distinctiveness. It was a project in the name of peace and reconciliation, where cultural identity was seen as a means to unity. ESC was therefore from the beginning a political project – but a project aimed at peace. People did not speak of “soft values” in propaganda terms, but of reunification through culture. It was a radical idea: that notes could build bridges where bombs had torn down walls. But if we look at ESC today, 70 years later, the picture is almost the opposite. The ambition to show national...
Läs mer

Deprimerad i Helsingfors – här är din pysselgrupp

Det finns något verkligt absurt i hur Helsingfors stad – och i förlängningen hela den offentliga vården i Finland – hanterar depression. När någon söker hjälp för en psykisk sjukdom, som i värsta fall kan vara livshotande, möts man av en psykiater som kan skriva en diagnos och eventuell sjukskrivning. Därefter erbjuds de ”vård”: i praktiken ergoterapi , där det handlar om att i grupp pyssla nyckelringar, trycka reflexer, eller dekorera tygkassar eller t-shirts eller alternativt individuell ergoterap i som ger hjälp att strukturera sin vardag, betala räkningar eller handla mat. Det är i sig inget fel på ergoterapi. Tvärtom kan det vara ett viktigt stöd för många som lider av psykossjukdomar, kognitiva svårigheter eller långvariga funktionsnedsättningar. Men att presentera detta som behandling för olika grader av depression är ett hån. Det är att säga: ”Vi har inget annat att ge dig. Så du får nöja dig.” Detta är inte vård, det är symptom på ett systemfel – och ett politiskt misslyc...
Läs mer