The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) is facing renewed scrutiny over its decision to allow Israel to participate in the 2025 Eurovision Song Contest, sparking accusations of political double standards. The controversy erupted following an open letter, signed by 72 former Eurovision contestants, calling for Israel’s exclusion due to its ongoing military operations in Gaza. Critics argue the EBU is contradicting its own principles by permitting Israel to compete while having banned Russia in 2022 over its invasion of Ukraine. The letter, published on May 6, 2025, accuses the EBU of “normalizing and whitewashing crimes against humanity” and demands the removal of Israel and its national broadcaster Kan from the competition. The signatories contend that allowing Israel to remain in the contest undermines Eurovision’s commitment to neutrality and human rights, especially in light of the humanitarian crisis unfolding in the Palestinian territories.
The current debate closely mirrors events from 2022, when the EBU excluded Russia from the contest following the launch of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The Ukrainian public broadcaster UA:PBC had appealed to the EBU to take action, citing the role of Russian state broadcasters in spreading government propaganda and supporting military aggression. Initially, the EBU maintained that Eurovision was an apolitical event and that both Ukraine and Russia would be allowed to compete. However, after significant backlash from other member countries, the EBU reversed its position and announced Russia’s disqualification, stating that its inclusion would bring the contest into disrepute.
Ukraine went on to win the 2022 contest with overwhelming public support. Although it was initially granted the right to host the 2023 edition, the ongoing war led to the United Kingdom, runner-up in 2022, hosting the event on Ukraine’s behalf. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy requested to speak during the final, but the EBU declined, citing its policy against political messaging.
This background has been repeatedly invoked by critics who say Israel’s continued participation in the competition contradicts the precedent set just three years ago. Many are questioning why a similar standard has not been applied amid global concern over Israel’s military actions in Gaza.
Israel first participated in Eurovision in 1973, becoming the first non-European country to do so, and has won the contest four times. Its involvement has frequently drawn controversy, particularly in the Arab world and among pro-Palestinian activists. In 1978, as Israel approached victory, broadcasters in several Arab countries cut their transmissions before the results were announced. In Jordan, state television abruptly ended coverage, citing “technical difficulties,” and later falsely reported that Belgium, runner-up that year, had won.
More recently, Israel’s hosting of the 2019 contest in Tel Aviv prompted calls for a boycott from the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and other advocacy groups. Critics accused the Israeli government of using the event to deflect attention from its treatment of Palestinians and to improve its international image through what some activists referred to as “pinkwashing”, highlighting LGBTQ+ rights in Israel while obscuring broader human rights issues.
One of the most visible protests came from Icelandic band Hatari, who displayed Palestinian flags during the final. The act led to a €5,000 fine for Iceland’s public broadcaster, RÚV, due to Eurovision rules prohibiting political statements during the show.
Controversy escalated again in 2024, when Israel's participation in the Malmö, Sweden edition of the contest coincided with intensifying violence in Gaza. Protesters demonstrated outside the venue, and widespread criticism followed Israel's song submission, “October Rain,” which the EBU ruled ineligible due to perceived references to the October 7 Hamas-led attacks. After negotiations, a modified version of the song, retitled “Hurricane,” was accepted for competition. However, during the live broadcasts, Israel's performances were met with audible boos from the audience—many of which were muted in the final television feed. Demonstrations outside the venue also highlighted the deep public divisions over the country's presence in the competition.
This year, those tensions resurfaced. Although Israel remained in the contest, many viewers and artists expressed concern over the integrity of the voting process. Raphael, Israel’s 2025 representative, received zero points from the professional juries but was awarded the maximum 12 points from televoters in Spain and Belgium. This discrepancy has led to widespread suspicion and renewed allegations of vote manipulation. Eurovision’s televoting rules allow individuals to cast up to 20 votes at a cost per vote, prompting critics to question whether the system can be abused through coordinated campaigns or outside influence.
In response, several public broadcasters and commentators have called for a formal investigation into the televoting process and greater transparency from the EBU.
Beyond the immediate dispute over Israel’s participation, many longtime Eurovision fans have voiced concern that the contest is drifting away from its founding principles of cultural exchange and unity through music. For decades, Eurovision has served as a rare platform where nations, regardless of political differences, could come together for entertainment and artistic celebration.
However, some argue that the contest’s insistence on being apolitical is increasingly unsustainable in a global climate where music, identity, and politics often intersect. Others caution that boycotts and exclusions could undermine the spirit of inclusion that Eurovision has long promoted. Still, the perception of double standards in how political crises are treated, especially between Russia’s exclusion and Israel’s continued inclusion, has led to a crisis of credibility for the EBU. Public trust in the institution’s neutrality and fairness may depend on how it chooses to address the mounting concerns.
As of mid-May, the EBU has yet to publicly address the demands made in the open letter or the ongoing criticism surrounding the 2025 contest. With pressure building from both within and outside the Eurovision community, the organization faces a pivotal moment in defining the future of the contest.
Whether the EBU upholds its existing position or adapts to rising calls for accountability may shape not only how Eurovision is perceived globally, but also whether it can continue to serve as a platform that transcends politics in a rapidly polarizing world.