Nine Ways of Looking at the Eurovision Results

How Eden Golan won an important moral victory

1.        Given the vitriol of anti-Israel feeling around the world since October 7, the results of the Eurovision came as somewhat of a surprise. Despite the efforts of those calling for us to be expelled from the competition, Israel finished fifth in the overall rankings, and second in the popular vote. Voters in 14 different countries (out of a total of 37) handed maximum points (12) to Israel, and 10 points from seven others. Israel received 323 televote points, just behind Croatia’s 337 and ahead of Ukraine’s 307. The evidence indicates a clear post-October 7 boost in support (like Ukraine has received since Russia’s invasion three years ago), suggesting the possible existence of a silent majority in Europe that is more supportive of Israel than some would have us believe.

2.        Of course, the Eurovision is not an opinion poll; perhaps Israel received so many votes simply because Golan gave a fantastic performance, one that was even more impressive given the number of people who were booing her. Perhaps it was because of the optics of a young woman facing off against a hostile crowd, both inside and outside of the arena. Maybe some people, whatever their thoughts on the war in Gaza, didn’t think that she should be held responsible.

3.        Most obviously: social media does not reflect real life. Plus: voting in the Eurovision costs 0.99 euros; this also has some kind of impact on who votes, although it’s impossible to say what it is.

4.        There are two reasons the boycott campaign might not have impacted the results. First, the campaign concentrated solely on getting Israel kicked out of the Eurovision, and not on ensuring that it received the dreaded “no points.” Second, the vote is for rather than against a particular contestant, making it difficult to register opposition to Israel through voting.

5.        There was a clear divergence between the popular vote and the jury vote, leading some Israelis to cry foul. Golan received the second-highest tally in the public vote, but came in only 12^th in the jury vote, resulting in the fifth-place finish. But a similar gap existed with the Croatian vote. The results of the popular vote, though, are fascinating. Israel received 12 points from almost every country in Western Europe, and the “rest of the world.” It received nearly maximum votes from each of the countries planning to recognize a Palestinian state later this month – Ireland, Slovenia, Spain, and Belgium (Ireland gave 10).

6.        The Eurovision is of course closely associated with LGBTQ culture. Indeed, this year, Switzerland’s Nemo became the competition’s first non-binary winner. Many leading figures from the LGBTQ community, though, supported the boycott. The Royal Vauxhall Tavern in London, a famous LGBTQ venue, cancelled its Eurovision party. So it wouldn’t make sense that Israel got its boost from there.

7.        If Israel’s strong showing in the public vote is about something other than Golan’s great performance, what could explain it? One possibility might be that hostility towards Jews or Israel in Europe is eclipsed by hostility towards Muslims. Also, while some of the early anti-war protests attracted huge numbers of people, at this stage, seven months into the war, the numbers are fewer, and it is unclear whether they are attracting new followers. Perhaps they remain niche affairs, large and much-discussed niche affairs, but niche affairs regardless. It is also important to note that many of the protests feature the paraphernalia of imperialist Islam, something Europeans have always found distasteful.

8.        If there was a silent majority that expressed its opposition to the loud minority by voting for Eden, what was it saying? Again, this is only speculation, but I think each group is driven by two conflicting ideas of morality: “Two wrongs don’t make a right” and “Don’t start none, won’t be none.” The morality of “two wrongs don’t make a right,” which animates much of the political left and international human rights organizations, posits that the guiltier party is the one that causes the most harm, even if that harm is carried out in response to another party’s crimes. The morality of “don’t start none, won’t be none,” meanwhile, posits that, if you start a fight, you can’t cry about it when it blows up in your face. Whatever harm you suffer may be regretful, but remains primarily your own fault, especially when you don’t take responsibility for starting the fight in the first place (this is especially tragic given that opinion polls still show high support among Palestinians for October 7). This translates into everyday human experience: People who are violently mugged are unlikely to forgive their attacker on account of them having experienced a terrible childhood or because they are poor. The protesters claim to simply want an end to the human suffering, but they refuse to hold Hamas to account for the fact that they started it. At best we get talking points like “it didn’t start on October 7,” as if the failure to resolve the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians (a failure, it must be emphasized, that the Palestinians are at least partially responsible for) means that Hamas have a free pass to indiscriminately murder Israelis whenever they please. Even now, despite the greater part of the suffering now being experienced by Gazans, I think many people understand that the fact Hamas started it must be reflected in efforts to resolve the issue.

9.        Finally, why devote a piece to this trivia? Especially given what’s happening here in the land: the civilians fleeing Rafah amidst the military operation there, the American decision to withhold ammunitions, the miserable mood here on this most terrible of national holidays. There will be time for all that. But the global protests against Israel have been built on the premise that “Zionists” are on the “wrong side of history”; while Jews have stood with dignity calling for the release of the hostages, people have marched through the streets of Western cities calling for Israel’s destruction, ignoring Hamas’s crimes while gaslighting us into believing that they just want a ceasefire. It is they who have made this into a popularity contest and not us, and we should enjoy the moments of dignity when they come along. As Joe Schwartz wrote on his terrific Substack: “This popular surge for Israel could mean a great deal, or it could mean nothing at all. But to us here – “we who dwell in Zion,” as the correspondent for Channel 11 called us – it means everything. They and we together are bearing Eden Golan aloft, our queen, our tribune, our shlichat tzibbur, who gave such exquisite voice to our agony.”