Why is Israel participating in Eurovision?

In 1973, Israel made its debut appearance at the Eurovision Song Contest in Luxembourg. The story began when singer Ilanit discovered that the Israel Broadcasting Authority was actually a member of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) - which allowed it and the contest's production to send official representatives to the competition. In short, despite Israel being located in the Middle East, Eurovision rules stipulate that anyone meeting the European Broadcasting Union's membership criteria is permitted to participate. In fact, as the Guardian noted, the Israeli broadcasting service was established with the assistance of European experts, and since it is a member of this union, it "belongs" just like any other participant. That's how Israel has already won the contest four times and hosted Eurovision (in 1979, 1999, and 2019), not because of geographic mapping but because of broadcasting laws and conventions.

European Broadcasting Union:

Why Australia and Azerbaijan Also Compete

It's important to understand: Eurovision belongs to the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) – not necessarily to the European continent. The union defines the "European broadcasting area" as extending from the Atlantic Ocean in the west to longitude 40° east, and from latitude 30° north in the south. According to this definition, cities like Jerusalem are included – which means that Middle Eastern and African countries can also be members of the union and participate. Even in other sporting events, other members of the Council of Europe are mentioned, and in Israel, they play both European basketball and football leagues. Not coincidentally, the Israeli Broadcasting Authority has been an EBU member since the 1950s, which opened the door for their debut appearance. The union's scope is even wider than you might have thought. For example, union members come "from Finland in the north to Egypt in the south, and from Ireland in the west to Azerbaijan in the east." In other words, Arab countries and Turkey, although not geographically in Europe, are full partners in the EBU. The distant south even included one non-European country in the competition, when Australia was invited to participate for the first time in 2015 as a special concession. The Australian Broadcasting Network (SBS) is an associate member of the EBU and received special approval to send a representative to the big event. Azerbaijan also proved that Eurovision is not a matter of continents: it is a country divided between Asia and Europe, and first participated in 2008. In fact, as one competition expert estimated, by the union's definitions, countries like Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, and Tunisia are all theoretically eligible to broadcast or participate. Which means that critics' claims that "Israel doesn't belong" have no logical basis: Libya and Morocco could actually participate too. (The Guardian has already written: "In the past, Morocco has participated, and Libya could whenever it wants, both having EBU member status.")

The Cultural Boycott Absurdity

This brings us to the satirical chapter: what does it really look like when people insist on not hearing or seeing Israel on the European stage?

In the early 1970s, when Arab television channels occasionally broadcast the event, channel operators promoted the music using the "Israeli censor" method. That is, every time an Israeli representative took the stage, they switched to commercials or religious programming. The most amusing/sad moment came in 1978: Israel was on its way to its first big victory, but the Jordanian broadcaster simply cut off the transmission. JTV announced to the audience a "technical malfunction," began showing images of flowers and vineyards, and then declared that according to "technical experts," Belgium had defeated Israel in the final round!

Imagine: flowers on the screen, viewers standing in amazement, and Jordanian television officials determining that Belgium was the winner. Sounds foolish and delusional? That's exactly what was documented in the Arab broadcasting archive.

The satire continued in 2005 when Télé Liban - the official website of the Lebanese Eurovision contest broadcaster "forgot to mention" Israel as a contestant. The EBU demanded that they display the list of participants or be disqualified. Later that month, the EBU asked Télé Liban to ensure that the competition would be broadcast in full, including the Israeli competitor, without interruption (no flowers over Israel). Télé Liban could not guarantee this request, and therefore on March 18, 2005, announced (again) its withdrawal from the competition because Lebanese law prohibits broadcasting Israeli content on Lebanese television networks.

A Small Reflection for Thought:

In 2024, in the midst of a painful and ongoing war, voices arose calling for Israel's removal from the Eurovision stage. Not because of the song, not because of the rules - but as a response to the very existence of a war. But this is not a war that Israel requested. It was a response to an unprecedented attack in which hundreds of citizens were murdered and kidnapped, and in which Hamas still holds hostages, women, children, elderly, and prevents their release for long months, under harsh conditions that receive almost no public discourse.

At the same time, another precedent received almost no attention: in September 2023, Azerbaijan invaded the Armenian-controlled region of Nagorno-Karabakh. The entire population, over 120,000 people, fled within days. The Armenian government defined the event as a "second Holocaust," and pleas for help went almost unanswered. No petition demanded Azerbaijan's exclusion from international competitions, no stage fell silent in protest.

This gap raises a delicate but necessary question: are our reactions always based on facts, or sometimes on image? Is it possible that certain voices manage to touch hearts. not because of reality, but because of the ability to present suffering in a more convincing way?

In a world of social networks, image is power. And perhaps here lies the danger: that whoever portrays themselves as weak - even if they commit violence - will receive sympathy, while anyone trying to defend their citizens will be seen as threatening.

This is a moment to re-examine our instincts as viewers, and ask: do we always stand with those who truly need support - or simply with those who know how to tell a stronger story?