Every time I’ve told someone about the Eurovision Song Contest, I’ve had to explain Israel’s participation.
“It’s a competition between European countries,” they argue. “What’s Israel doing there?”
Before October, I merely retorted that Australia competes too, a response that avoids a long conversation about the intricacies of the European Broadcasting Union. Since October, Israel’s presence and the ability to explain it away has gotten much trickier, both for Eurovision and me.
Since the Israel-Hamas War began, many have called for Eurovision to exclude the country from the 2024 contest. Russia was banned over its invasion of Ukraine. This, they argue, is not a sufficiently different conflict to justify a different treatment.
In December, Eurovision announced Israel would be allowed to compete, citing other international contests that allow Israeli competitors; more crucially, Eurovision cited the Song Contest’s status as a “non-political event, [which unites] the world through music.”
That statement does not cut it. Eurovision cannot continue to pretend to be a safe space where politics do not tread. The rubber of that argument does not meet the road.
The decision to ban Russia was the right one and largely uncontroversial. Russia could not compete while attempting to conquer a neighboring country. Even before the ban, Russia and Ukraine did not shy away from politics at the competition.
In 2015, Russian singer Polina Gagarina nearly won Eurovision with an anti-war song. Two years later, she served as a proxy for Vladimir Putin. Amid Putin’s war in Ukraine, she is once again a Putin proxy.
In 2016, two years after Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula, Ukrainian singer Jamala won Eurovision. Her song, “1944,” depicted the forced deportation of Crimean Tatars, a minority ethnic group in the region, under Josef Stalin. Leaving proved deadly for many, including one of Jamala’s great-grandmother’s children.
When the song was chosen to represent Ukraine, the BBC referred to it as “aimed at Russia.” Members of the Russian government complained, but the song was deemed to “contain no political speech.”
Can a song about such a loaded moment in history with clear through-lines to the present be apolitical?
Ukraine’s most recent song, “Heart of Steel,” finished sixth in 2023. It includes the lyrics “sometimes you just gotta know when to stick your middle finger up in the air” and a chorus of
“Don’t care what you say,
Don’t care how you feel,
Get out of my way,
‘Cause I got a heart of steel.”
While these lyrics aren’t inherently political, they cannot be removed from the context of fighting off an invasion. The competition to represent Ukraine at Eurovision was held 90 meters underground due to safety concerns. That environment is going to result in political songs, and it did. Claiming otherwise removes the context which led to the song’s creation. If anything, that does a disservice to the artists.
War isn’t the only issue the countries address.
Russia’s entry in 2021 was a feminist song, with a chorus proclaiming “every Russian woman needs to know: you’re strong enough, you’re gonna break the wall.” Under Putin, Russia’s domestic violence laws have drastically weakened. That oft-occurring lyric, like many others in the song, does not hide the fact that it refers to an ongoing political issue. A member of Russia’s lower parliament, in response to the song, said it was “necessary to refuse Russia’s participation as a state in this event.”
Russia and Ukraine are also hardly the only countries to submit political entries.
In 2023, Switzerland submitted an anti-war song, the Czech Republic submitted a feminist song and Croatia submitted a song which solely existed to make fun of Putin and Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko.
The 2022 Eurovision featured a flamboyantly gay Israeli entry (many Eurovision countries still do not allow same-sex marriage) and a Latvian entry about how going vegan to fight climate change makes you sexy.
Other recent highly political songs have included Italy’s 2017 entry with the lines (in Italian) “there are no pacifist bombs” and “because everything goes beyond your useless wars,” Denmark’s 2018 sea shanty-inspired entry about the benefits of surrender and peaceful negotiations and the 2021 Dutch entry, which included lyrics in Sranan Tongo — a Surinamese language developed by slaves while Suriname was a Dutch colony. Jeangu Macrooy, the singer, told a Dutch radio station the song’s lyrics were partially inspired by the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020.
Israel itself won in 1998 with the competition’s first transgender winner, which sparked anger internationally and within Israel. Similar anger erupted in 2014, when Austria’s Conchita Wurst — a drag queen — won the competition.
I generally agree with Eurovision’s decisions on who is allowed to compete. In recent years, they have largely landed on the right side of history. Opposing war, advocating for equality and advancing women’s and LGBTQ+ rights are all admirable goals. In today’s world, unfortunately, those goals are far from apolitical.
Russia is not the only country to be banned from Eurovision.
Belarus was banned in 2021 for entering a song too laudatory of Lukashenko which some worried would legitimize violent put-downs of protests. Georgia pulled out of the competition in 2009 after their song was deemed too critical of Putin. Israel, therefore, would not be in uncharted territory.
Israel’s participation has resulted in consternation before.
Lebanon intended to join the Eurovision Song Contest in 2005, but pulled out when they were told they would have to broadcast the whole show, including Israel’s song which would likely have fallen afoul of the country’s laws.
Jordan was reprimanded in 1979, when the country did not show Israel’s winning entry or the winner’s announcement, later announcing that second-place Belgium won.
Even the scoring is political. Points are awarded, in part, by representatives from competing countries. Those scores often have clear political overtones — Cyprus and Greece almost always score each other in first place. This is far from a new phenomenon — a master’s student at Duke University found that “Eurovision voting is a meaningful reflection of Europe,” which “can confirm opinions on intra-regional relations”. Neighboring companies which get along tend to favor each other in the scoring column.
Eurovision seems willing to acknowledge and allow some political scoring. It advertises songs about some hot button issues, but not all. It recognizes that participation is itself political.
So far, no country has pulled out of the competition in response to Israel’s inclusion. Contestants, however, have not been so silent.
Multiple Finnish hopefuls came out against Israel’s participation, with UMK winner and Finnish entry Windows95Man taking time to decide if competing in Eurovision would compromise his morals because of Israel’s presence. United Kingdom entry Olly Alexander was criticized for signing a letter accusing Israel of genocide and being an apartheid state. Iceland left the door open as to whether or not they will compete before finally deciding to remain in the competition in March. Ireland’s Bambie Thug went on the record to say they do not believe Israel should participate.
After the song’s submission, the EBU mandated that Israel’s entry, “October Rain,” was too political to compete without changes. The title alone left little doubt as to the subject matter of the song.
After initially strongly rejecting the notion that they would alter the song, the country has since accommodated the EBU’s request. The replacement song, “Hurricane,” was approved Thursday. The song’s music video was posted by the Eurovision Song Contest YouTube channel. There is now no doubt: Israel will compete.
Regardless of the outcome, this debate was predictable. After the events of October 7, there was no chance the song would be apolitical.
Eurovision cannot continue to ride the fence. Now set to include Israel, the EBU must find an explanation, any explanation, which does not hinge on the thin veneer of apolitics.