Statement on the Eurovision Song Contest 2026

My coverage of this year’s Eurovision Song Contest would be incomplete without discussing some of the major controversies surrounding the contest, and particularly the issue of Israel’s participation. I hope that this statement will outline my thoughts on the matter, and justify my decision to continue my Eurovision coverage this year.

Eurovision has always presented itself as an apolitical space: a celebration of music, culture and togetherness that transcends borders. Yet this claim has never fully held up to scrutiny. The Eurovision Song Contest is inherently political – not because every song carries an explicit message, but because the competition is built on nations, representation and visibility. Decisions about who participates, who hosts, which flags are displayed and which narratives are permitted are unavoidably political acts. To pretend otherwise is to misunderstand what Eurovision is and always has been.

At its founding in the aftermath of the Second World War, Eurovision was designed as a soft-power project: a way to bind Europe together through cultural exchange and shared spectacle. Over the decades, it has mirrored political realities rather than escaped them. The inclusion and exclusion of countries, the return of nations after regime change, songs shaped by protest or national trauma and debates over language, identity and values have all demonstrated that Eurovision does not sit outside politics – it reflects it in a palatable, televised form.

Since I became a Eurovision fan in 2018, I have been exposed to so many elements of European geopolitics that aren’t often picked up by the mainstream media in the UK, including the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the controversy surrounding the Belarusian election in 2020. I can honestly say that I would be considerably less politically aware if it wasn’t for the contest. Whilst I have so far tried to steer clear of including political content in this blog, I no longer feel that I can continue to cover Eurovision in good conscience without acknowledging the controversies that have arisen over the past two years.

The current situation did not emerge overnight. It is the result of a sequence of interconnected events. Escalating geopolitical conflict, unprecedented civilian suffering and intense global scrutiny have led many fans, artists and broadcasters to question the EBU’s consistency in applying its own rules and values. Comparisons have been drawn with past exclusions and suspensions, prompting accusations of double standards. These concerns have been amplified by artist statements, fan-led protests, broadcaster unease and increasingly visible fractures within the Eurovision community itself.

As the EBU has reaffirmed Israel’s participation on the basis that its broadcaster meets the formal criteria, the debate has shifted. It is no longer only about rules, but about ethics, credibility and trust. For many, Eurovision’s insistence on being “non-political” now feels less like neutrality and more like a selective framing that benefits existing power structures. This tension – between institutional governance and grassroots sentiment – has brought Eurovision to one of the most difficult moments in its history.

I want to be clear about my own position: I am personally against Israel’s participation in this year’s contest. That view comes from a moral and political assessment of the current situation, and from a belief that cultural platforms are not neutral when they provide legitimacy and normalcy amid profound injustice. Additionally, if anything has been made clear to me over the last two years, it is the indisputable fact that Israel’s continued presence at Eurovision is damaging the competition’s integrity, eroding trust in its voting system, and hence bringing the contest into disrepute. However, personal opposition does not negate the importance of critical engagement.

This blog will continue to cover the Eurovision Song Contest in 2026 precisely because disengagement would serve nobody. Eurovision remains a cultural event with real influence, and withdrawing from discussion would not make its contradictions disappear. Coverage does not equal endorsement. On the contrary, continuing to write about Eurovision allows space to document, question and contextualise what is happening – to challenge official narratives, to amplify marginalised voices and to hold institutions accountable.

Abandoning coverage would mean surrendering the conversation to those who insist that the contest exists in a political vacuum. It would mean leaving fans without analysis that treats them as capable of grappling with complexity. Eurovision can be joyful, absurd, emotional and unifying – but it can also be uncomfortable, compromised and revealing. Both realities can, and do, coexist, and honest coverage must make room for that discomfort.

This blog’s commitment is not to the sanitised version of Eurovision, but to the real one: a contest shaped by power, politics, culture and contradiction. Continuing to cover it is not an act of complicity, but an act of critical attention. And right now, critical attention matters more than ever.