Friday 15 May 2026 10:30 am | Updated: Friday 15 May 2026 10:33 am
Banning Russia but not Israel shows Eurovision has lost its moral compass
By Pablo O'Hana
There is a particular kind of grief in cancelling something you love. After 14 years of hosting what I can only describe as genuinely joyful Eurovision parties – complete with LED wristbands, confetti cannons, a marquee, more than a hundred people – I called off this year's 15th anniversary for the first time. I could not in good conscience stand in front of a crowd and ask them to celebrate a contest that has lost its moral compass.
Eurovision was born in the rubble of the Second World War. The idea, hatched by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), was almost laughably ambitious: take a continent that had spent a decade pointing guns at each other, and bring it back together through shared values and competitive, sometimes slightly absurd, music. And yet, it worked. Improbably, it has been a magnificent victory. For nearly 70 years, Eurovision has brought Europe together and advanced social progress in a way few institutions can. Three decades ago, Dana International's victory as the first trans artist sparked a global discussion; Conchita Wurst's win influenced a United Nations debate on human rights, and Serbia's 2007 triumph marked its first international recognition as an independent nation. In 2023, we saw both Britain and the contest at its best: a year after Ukraine claimed victory despite unimaginable adversity, the UK hosted the contest in Liverpool on their behalf. It was the first time a winning country could not host for security reasons. The result was a deeply profound and unapologetic show of solidarity that solidified our country as a moral leader on the world stage.
This origin story matters because it is precisely what makes Israel's continued inclusion so difficult to defend. Israel participates through its membership of the EBU, which extends to broadcasters across the Mediterranean and Middle East. That arrangement has existed without controversy until Netanyahu launched a deadly military campaign in Gaza, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians. That alone plunged the contest into chaos – and that was before allegations of voter manipulation.
Recently, I commissioned the first nationally representative poll of British public opinion on this issue. The results were beyond conclusive: three-quarters said banning Russia but not Israel is inconsistent, with 69 per cent believing the UK should withdraw if Israel is permitted. That is an overwhelming majority, and it deserves to be taken seriously rather than what one mainstream broadcast journalist dismissed as “student union politics.” This kind of ignorance is nothing new. But dismiss Eurovision at your own peril. Including global online viewership, the show pulls in over a billion eyeballs and is an important platform for countries like Russia and Israel.
When the EBU banned Russia after its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, many joked it was not top of Vladimir Putin's mind. In truth, the Kremlin took it seriously enough to create its own spin-off – Intervision Song Contest – proving its significance on the global stage and in cultural diplomacy. The editor of Israel's broadcaster, KAN, publicly described Eurovision as “more than just a musical event… it is a critical arena for Israeli advocacy.”
The EBU's tone-deaf response has been to insist that Eurovision is a non-political event – a position that does not survive even light contact with reality. Russia's expulsion was swift, decisive, and widely praised. The EBU declared that Russian participation would bring the contest into disrepute and breach its values. The language was unambiguous: some situations are too grave to paper over with key changes and wind machines.
And so the question that the EBU has never adequately answered is this: what principle distinguishes Russia in 2022 from Israel in 2026? The death toll in Gaza now far exceeds that of the early weeks of the Ukraine war, when Russia was removed. The legal proceedings are, if anything, more advanced. The international condemnation is at least as widespread. If the EBU applied its own precedent consistently, the conclusion would not be complicated.
In the absence of leadership from the EBU, several broadcasters have already reached that conclusion and withdrawn from this year's contest, including Spain, the second-highest financial contributor, and Ireland, the joint record holder for most wins. The EBU's selectivity has come at a cost. And not just credibility.
The EBU's statement on Russia claimed it was “an apolitical member organisation of broadcasters committed to upholding the values of public service”. That claim sits very uneasily alongside the reality that journalists from EBU member broadcasters have been killed in the deadliest conflict for journalists in recorded history.
I have spent most of my life defending Eurovision. I have argued that it is not some trash pop music contest. From Celine Dion to Sam Ryder, the artists are talented, and the voices impressive. It has been a space where difference is celebrated rather than flattened, and most importantly, its moral mission is vital. That is why this matters.
The EBU has a choice. It can begin to engage honestly with what its own precedents require, and with what majorities across European countries are telling it. Or it can be honest with us. Banning Russia was easy because it had near-universal Western consensus behind it. It was not operating from a principled position. It was operating from a political comfort zone, and calling it principle. It can then, in all good conscience, continue insisting Eurovision is apolitical while making consistently inconsistent political decisions. The rest of us will have to make do with mourning that the contest born to bind a continent back together now seems hellbent on pulling it apart.
Pablo O'Hana is a journalist and political adviser who has served senior UK political figures, including the Deputy Prime Minister, Secretaries of State and three successive Lib Dem leaders.
