Is the Eurovision Song Contest (ESC) apolitical?
If you go by the official rules and statements from those in charge, it would seem so. But the central question is whether culture (and with some imagination, the ESC can be seen as part of it) can be separated from politics.
It’s a question that’s actually easy to answer. And there’s no need to cite theoretical works to do so. A sober look at present and past realities quickly shows that this separation is not possible. On the contrary: culture is an essential component of politics, used to protect and enforce one’s own interests.
The ESC does not play a minor role here; rather, since its founding in 1956, it has been used — sometimes more, sometimes less obviously — in the interest of those in political power. Whether or not the musical contributions of the participants carry a political character is secondary.
Since the early 21st century, a slow erosion has become noticeable, gradually removing the false mask: the political nature of the ESC is no longer being concealed. On the contrary, given the current global conflicts, this cultural struggle is seen as a necessary element.
What is the ESC?
The event was launched by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which was led from 1954 to 1970 by Swiss journalist Marcel Bezençon. The idea was to establish a (Western) European broadcasting network that would have an impact beyond national borders.
Even though the EBU emphasizes that the ESC does not pursue a political mission, a class conflict cannot be denied. At that time, the so-called West stood in opposition to the Soviet Union. A centralized broadcaster did not only play a role in light entertainment, but also exerted propagandistic influence on the local population.
But how does the ESC respond to concrete political situations? At the latest since the European Union (EU) began to slowly distance itself from Russia under President Putin, internal Russian and foreign policy conflicts have been increasingly instrumentalized. After the so-called “Euromaidan” of the Ukrainian state in 2014, which led to the current war in Ukraine, calls for Russia’s exclusion grew louder.
Due to diplomatic considerations, this was initially not reflected in the EBU’s actions, even though the central broadcaster is closely aligned with EU strategy. When Ukraine won in 2016 with the song 1944, the EU’s relationship with Russia further deteriorated: the song highlights the deportation of Crimean Tatars in the titular year. In light of the conflict over Crimea, which is now occupied by Russia, the song carried a particularly political weight.
The EBU’s decision didn’t take long. In 2021, Belarus — closely allied with Russia — was excluded; a year later, Russia followed. Since the founding of the Eurovision Song Contest, this supposedly apolitical event has excluded two nations. The apparent reason seems obvious: war. But ultimately, it’s about reinforcing the EU’s political agenda, which, since 2022, has taken a radically anti-Russian course.
If war were truly the only criterion, other nations would also have to be excluded — specifically, the State of Israel.
Musical Genocide
The State of Israel has been participating in the ESC since 1973. The Zionist regime secured its first two wins in 1978 and 1979. While the song A-Ba-Ni-Bi in 1978 appeared to lack political undertones, the interpretation of the following year’s entry Hallelujah is more open. The chorus goes:
Hallelujah, day by day
Hallelujah, don’t throw it away
Fly and spread your wings, have a try
Be free again, like a butterfly
Come along and sing with us, Hallelujah
The literary call for freedom, supported by the Hebrew “Hallelujah” allows for the interpretation of a religious promise — that the State of Israel is the land of all Jews.
The concept of freedom is framed as the positive freedom of a people, while the same state has, since 1948, oppressed, persecuted, and destroyed another people. Hallelujah becomes a cry of the destruction of Palestinians.
A similar reading applies to the 1998 winning song Diva. There too, a religious narrative is woven in — the idea that the State of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people and must free itself. The second verse (excerpt) states:
Silent tears
drop from these eyes tonight
Tears of prayer
for all those aching hearts
The real suffering and persecution of Jewish people is instrumentalized by the Israeli state, which forgets those tears — tears that overshadow the tears of the Palestinian people. Tears that veil genocide.
What was once shrouded in subtle dramaturgy became completely unveiled at this year’s Eurovision in Basel. Performer Yuval Raphael, who was present at the Nova festival during the Hamas attack, delivers absolute Zionist propaganda. The song New Day Will Rise is the logical consequence of the works from 1978 and 1998. The chorus goes:
A new day will rise, life will go on
Everyone cries, don’t cry alone
Darkness will fade, all the pain will go by
But we will stay, even if you say goodbye
October 7, 2023, is being historicized as a second Shoah — referring to the systematic extermination of European Jews by German fascists. The genocide committed by Zionists, based on the events of October 7, 2023, serves as a political cue to integrate culture within the Israeli state into state ideology. Israeli hostages and victims are being instrumentalized to justify the outright terror inflicted on the Palestinian people.
A brief look at Switzerland
The “apolitical” nature of the Eurovision Song Contest (ESC), as well as the participation of the Israeli state, can be aligned with Switzerland’s politics and state ideology. Since its founding, Switzerland has understood itself as a “neutral state.” That the ESC, as previously mentioned, originated in the Alpine republic and now finds its most radical expression there, is likely a matter of historical coincidence.
Switzerland, which sees itself as a diplomatic actor in global conflicts, provided Theodor Herzl with a platform in Basel (after being unwelcome in Austria) to lay the ideological foundation for today’s Israeli state. Even then, the political nature of Zionism was clear — it cannot help but be ethnonationalist. This “Jewish nationalism,” which claims to speak for all Jews, is not only an enemy of Arab and Persian peoples but also a systemic ally of (European) antisemitism: the expulsion of Jews from all bourgeois states is the common denominator of both antisemitism and Zionism.
Switzerland’s role becomes evident here — a country that consistently hides behind “neutrality.” Before and during the Shoah, the majority of fleeing Jews were denied entry. But today, due to shared interests among the ruling classes, Switzerland — though it does not say so explicitly — effectively positions itself as a Zionist state. This became especially clear on May 15, 2025, the day of remembrance for the Nakba: the Swiss government announced a ban on Hamas. The pages-long justification remained vague enough to imply a general association between the Palestinian movement and Hamas.
To date, only two organizations have been banned in Switzerland: the so-called “Islamic State” (IS) and al-Qaeda. But even this classification may need revising: the Islamist HTS’s takeover in Syria has been met with tacit approval in Bern. HTS’s de facto leader, al-Jolani, was once part of IS, and HTS is a traditional continuation of al-Qaeda. The proclaimed neutrality, then, is a managed one — a consciously political decision.
Neutrality in the Face of Resistance in Basel
It must be acknowledged: conditions like those seen in Berlin are (so far) not present in Switzerland. Repression and excessive police violence are rarely experienced by pro-Palestinian activists. However, that does not mean that Switzerland is not acting within the framework it has set for itself as a “neutral state.” And as much as all involved had hoped that this year’s Eurovision would simply be an apolitical parade of millionaires, the participation of the Israeli state sparked cross-border criticism.
Even ahead of the event, voices were raised calling for Raphael’s exclusion. The winner of ESC 2024 in Malmö, Sweden — Nemo — told HuffPost UK in early May:
I personally feel like it doesn’t make sense that Israel is a part of this Eurovision. And of Eurovision in general right now.
A little later, Nemo added:
Israel’s actions are fundamentally at odds with the values that Eurovision claims to uphold – peace, unity, and respect for human rights.
An open letter signed by around 70 former Eurovision participants called not only for the exclusion of Israel but also of the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation (KAN). KAN is a member of the EBU. The letter stated:
KAN is complicit in Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza and the decades-long regime of apartheid and military occupation against the entire Palestinian people.
That the EBU stands behind KAN comes as little surprise. It points to the “inclusive character” of Eurovision and asserts that KAN meets all requirements. Whether a state is committing genocide appears to be irrelevant.
However, even other public broadcasters voiced criticism of KAN and Israel’s participation. Broadcasters from Belgium, Ireland, Iceland, and Slovenia joined a letter initiated by Spain’s Radiotelevisión Española, calling for a critical debate about KAN.
That all of this ultimately had no effect is hardly surprising. Eurovision and the EBU function as propaganda tools of Western interests, exerting cultural influence. That’s why resistance on the ground in Basel was more important than ever.
From Basel to Gaza
Resistance had already begun to take shape on May 11, the day of the parade of glamour. The group ESCalate for Palestine called for action, and in an initial statement released on May 8, they exposed the Eurovision Song Contest’s cooperation with the Israeli company Moroccanoil. An excerpt from the statement reads:
The Israeli main sponsor Moroccanoil exemplifies a web of brand propaganda, cultural appropriation, and the image management of Israel.
This “image management” not only serves to whitewash the Israeli state’s war crimes but also reveals the Zionist influence on European cultural policy. From this, ESCalate for Palestine draws a clear conclusion:
Anyone who presents themselves as ‘apolitical’ while celebrating colonial brands and ignoring war crimes is not neutral — they are complicit.
Under this motto, several hundred activists took to the streets to disrupt the glamorous event with pro-Palestinian chants and flags. One activist even briefly blocked the tram in which Yuval Raphael was riding. Although there were no further direct conflicts, KAN and the pro-Israel media and politicians were relentless in claiming that the actions of ESCalate for Palestine were motivated by antisemitism. By pointing out that Raphael was at the Nova Festival on October 7, 2023, this also served as an indirect approval of the Palestinian attack.
Since the Israeli state qualified for the final on May 14, it was clear that a larger protest would take place the following Saturday. About 1,500 pro-Palestinian activists took to the streets, intending to enter the old town to protest the event directly on site. However, the Basel police blocked them and forced them to take an alternative route. The activists refused to comply and tried to reach their goal via another way.
The police response can be seen as an initial application of the new guidelines under the “Hamas ban”: rubber bullets, stun grenades, and water cannons were ready to suppress the resistance. Officers in full riot gear later kettled a large part of the protesters and took the personal information of nearly 500 protesters over several hours.
In a statement on May 19, the activists reported that several protesters were injured but emphasized their resilience. It read:
Despite their use of excessive force, the demonstrators stayed strong and united. Chants in solidarity with Palestine could be heard well into the night.
Further clear protest was shown in the burning of Israeli and U.S. flags. The U.S. is, after Germany, the largest financial, ideological, and military supporter of the genocide in Gaza.
Resistance was also audible within the event itself. A few Palestinian flags were visible in the audience; and when Raphael performed, whistles and boos made it clear that Israel was not welcome here. That Raphael received most of the audience points is ultimately not surprising. It especially shows how all conceivable means are being used to maintain the “image management.” Rumors that KAN and the Israeli state bribed audience members to vote for Raphael are therefore not so unlikely.
What remains?
After 20 months of genocide in Gaza and 77 years of Nakba, protests in Western industrialized countries are growing stronger. Supposedly “neutral feel-good states” like Switzerland reveal their ugly face, behind whose diplomatic facade Western imperialism hides. Imperialism that cannot exist without Zionism and therefore must support the genocide. Occasional criticisms and warnings from individual states are merely moral gestures — the underlying interests remain unchanged.
The pessimism and frustration within parts of the Palestine solidarity movement, due to the genocide becoming ever more brutal and seemingly nothing changing, is understandable. However, when placing what has been happening worldwide since October 7, 2023, in historical context, a mass movement has emerged that not only opposes the genocide and Zionism but also confronts how this liberation struggle must be fought.
The ruling classes of this world are increasingly resorting to repressive methods that formally violate civil rights. But it has long ceased to be about defending civil rights such as freedom of assembly, speech, and science. The Palestinian liberation struggle is the liberation struggle of all oppressed peoples and ultimately the liberation struggle of humanity from an inhumane system.
The protest in Basel is emblematic of this growing movement, which is being met with increasing brutality by the ruling classes. Since the winner of ESC in Basel was the Austrian Johannes “JJ” Pietsch, next year the supposed “neutrality” of the “neutral” Austria will come under attack. JJ has made clear — despite recent self-censorship — on which side he stands. In an interview with heute.at, he emphasized:
If it were up to me, I would exclude Israel.
The fight continues — it must.