The inclusion or exclusion of Israel from the 2026 Eurovision Song Contest is now on the table of the European Broadcasting Union.
Following discussions at the 2025 EBU General Assembly about Israeli public service broadcaster KAN’s participation, a “former senior TV executive” is to lead a dialogue with fellow broadcasters to ultimately produce a report this autumn on how the EBU can manage participation and geopolitical tensions at the Song Contest. Knowing that some broadcasters, including Big 5 member Spain, have already stated that they plan to leave Eurovision if Israel remains in the Contest, much of the future of Eurovision rests on this report.
We arguably haven’t seen a document more critical for the Contest’s future in my lifetime.
In this article, we focus on one aspect of what we should expect in the report: a look into how other international organisations approach the same challenge of navigating this particular geopolitical tension with modern-day Israel.
We aim to introduce and then explore in detail how Israel and organisations linked to Israel have been treated internationally from October 7th 2023, to the present day, and how those organisations balance one of the globe’s most difficult geopolitical challenges. We have focused our research on three different areas—the world of arts, sports, and politics—which, in many ways, mirror Eurovision’s artistic, competitive, and politically significant fields.
What makes the Song Contest unique is that it crosses all three domains at once: Eurovision is at once an artistic celebration, an international competition, and a stage where both soft and hard politics intrude upon proceedings. That combination means the stakes for Eurovision are different from any other organisation.
The Song Contest in the Spotlight
Our research provides a glimpse of the issue of Israel’s inclusion in the world as it is currently being addressed at various levels. It is not an all-encompassing picture of every key statement and event, but instead a snapshot into the difficulties that the worlds of arts, sports, and politics have in trying to navigate one of the world’s most divisive issues.
What we find in our research, while differing slightly across the various fields, is that pressure on Israel has increased from 2023 to the present day, intensifying in particular this month, September 2025. Pressure on Israel from political, cultural, and sporting fronts has grown, as well as calls for further protests and boycotts.
Yet nothing has translated into Israel, as a nation, finding itself excluded from any of the world’s stages. The Eurovision Song Contest is the only global organisation of its type that has openly committed to a review, a report, and ultimately a vote on KAN and Israel’s inclusion or exclusion from next year’s Song Contest. No other organisation matching the EBU’s enormous international scale has dared to take such steps.
The reality is that every other field will be watching the EBU with interest to see whether the Contest maintains its inclusion of Israel or takes the unprecedented step of exclusion. That makes the EBU’s decision for 2026 a defining one.
As pressure on the EBU mounts, let us examine in-depth what the EBU report will discover across various sectors of society.
The World of the Arts
If we begin with the world of visual arts, one good starting point is the Venice Biennale, the oldest running contemporary art exhibition. The organisation of this event is one where individual nations act as exhibitors, allowing them to showcase the best work from their country.
Italian Culture Minister, Gennaro Sangiuliano, made it clear that Israel was welcome to the Biennale in 2024, citing it as a “space of freedom, meeting and dialogue.” However, on the ground in Venice, Israel’s representative artist Ruth Patir decided to close the exhibition of her work “until a ceasefire and hostage release agreement was reached”.
The work was never opened to the public during the exhibition, and Israel did not participate in the 2025 Venice Biennale, citing “budgetary reasons” to renovate their pavilion as the reason for their non-participation this year.
Elsewhere in music, the UK’s Royal Ballet and Opera withdrew from a planned 2026 production of Tosca at the Israeli Opera in Tel Aviv. The decision, announced in August, followed internal dissent and an open letter from company staff, as well as the raising of a Palestinian flag at a performance in July 2025. Nearly 200 members of the RBO signed the letter, from a variety of on- and off-stage roles, which led to the planned production being pulled.
Within the literary world, the Frankfurt Book Fair is the world’s largest, with several thousand exhibitors and publishers each year. As an organisation, it issued a statement soon after the October 7th attack on Israel that it sought to make “Israeli voices especially visible”. Calls for the later removal of Israeli authors or exhibitors the following year did not change the status quo, with organising CEO Juergen Boos being quoted as saying:
“The book fair is a platform for democratic exchange for authors and publishing professionals from every corner of the world”.
He also cited German anti-trust legislation limiting how much his organisation could cancel work from any country, as long as that country was not banned by German law.
This contrasts with the Hay Festival in the UK, an eleven-day literature celebration that attracts 250,000 visitors annually, which had calls for its main sponsor, Baillie Gifford, to be removed, as prominent speakers at the festival threatened to withdraw. This was because Baillie Gifford, an investment firm, was accused of profiting from the actions of Israel in Gaza by the organisation Fossil Free Books. While the organisers at first “continued to engage” with the company and tried to “resolve” the disagreements, eventually the festival split from its main sponsor. The Edinburgh International Book Festival soon after also removed Baillie Gifford as their headline sponsor, ending a 20-year relationship.
The arts world is not one with a uniform approach to Israel, but it is one where grassroots actions by artists themselves have led to substantial changes in policies.
The Sporting World
Arguably, the most influential sporting body in the world is the International Olympic Committee, responsible for organising the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The IOC, in 2024, published a statement reaffirming that its work is against the politicisation of sport, and that sports organisations that are part of the Olympic Movement “shall apply political neutrality.” The same statement goes on to explain how Russia’s current exclusion from the global sporting stage is due to the Russian government’s “purely political motivation” and “total disrespect for the global anti-doping standards”, highlighting how this differs from other conversations on the world stage.
Within the Olympic movement today, both Israel and Palestine have equal participation at the Olympic Games. When recently asked about Israeli participation by Australian broadcaster SBS, in response to calls in Australia for Israel not to compete at the 2032 games in Brisbane, they were told that both Israeli and Palestinian teams were given “equal rights” to be present as part of the Olympics.
This sense of equality filters down through the different international sports organisations. As a general rule, the major international sporting bodies adhere to the same inclusion principle as the IOC, rather than taking a stance that could risk their participation in the world’s biggest sporting event.
Within football, for example, the Palestinian Football Association has submitted a request to ban their Israeli equivalent, not just on humanitarian grounds but also to allow teams from internationally recognised Palestinian territory to be part of the Israeli league system. The PFA claims that this breaks FIFA statutes, because one should only play games on another member’s territory with prior approval. However, despite the request being submitted in May 2024 and various FIFA organisations being formally asked to investigate thereafter, by the May 2025 FIFA Congress, there had been no formal report or change in the situation, with the FIFA Secretary General claiming that work “remains on-going.”
This is somewhat similar to tennis, where calls for Israel’s disqualification from the Davis Cup, one of tennis’ most prestigious country-versus-country competitions, have not led to Israel’s exclusion. The official response from the International Tennis Federation is that, despite the “highly complex situation” with Israel, they remain part of the main global sporting community. The International Judo Federation, in a statement about a controversial incident where an Algerian jukoda was accused of being overweight intentionally to avoid a match against an Israeli opponent, stressed how “sport should remain a realm of integrity and fairness, free from the influences of international conflicts”.
The inclusion of Israel at the sporting events is also a logistical challenge, often heightening the costs for organisers to ensure the safety and security of all participating. One example of this being a challenge was the Ice Hockey U20 tournament in Bulgaria, where the coordinators initially released a statement stating that Israel could not participate due to difficulties in managing the security arrangements. However, within a week of said statement, Bulgarian government ministries stepped in to provide the required level of security.
This is a similar story with events in the World Bowls Tour in Great Yarmouth, as in December 2024, a statement from organisers was given that “political concerns”, which would risk the “best interest of the event’s success and integrity”, meant three Israeli entrants would lose their places. Again, a later statement confirmed that indeed the Israeli athletes were thereafter permitted to compete, thanks to “additional security measures” that were made available to organisers.
In conclusion, Israel’s position in the sporting world today is marked by a tension between the universal principle of neutrality championed by the IOC and the practical realities of politics and protest. While Israel remains fully recognised and included across major sporting federations, its participation often requires additional security, special measures, or political negotiation, and not every event has felt able to fulfil this each time.
In comparison to the arts world, athletes have much less influence on their choices. Elite athletes can rarely choose where they compete and who they compete against, and as such, they are bound by the decisions made by the organisations above them to a greater extent. To boycott an event is therefore a much stronger statement, and one that may have longer-lasting repercussions for the athlete in question than for any artist.
The Political World
If the sports world strives to maintain a level playing field for competition, and the arts world debates whether art is genuinely accessible to all and respects the freedom of expression, the political arena has been the arena where those arguments are put to their most rigorous tests.
From early 2024, the political framework was shaped as much by legal processes as by diplomacy. South Africa’s application to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) alleging breaches of the Genocide Convention opened a formal legal pathway to try Israel for its actions in Gaza. The ICJ issued provisional measures in January 2024, binding Israel to six requirements that it must follow, such as punishing any incitement of genocide and enabling food and aid to reach people living in Gaza fairly. However, Israel has had its time extended on their requirements to report back to the ICJ until 2026, and, with the UN Security Council the ultimate body responsible for following through with any breaches, it is thought that any measures currently are not enforceable.
Human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, concluded in late 2024 that actions in Gaza met the threshold of genocide under the Genocide Convention. Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International, called out particularly to key states in the West, such as the USA, the United Kingdom and many EU members, to “act now” to stop the atrocities taking place in Gaza.
Throughout 2024 and the first half of 2025, most Western governments balanced these delicate relationships without any actions that would be interventions against Israel. One example is the EU’s Horizon fund for research and innovation, to which Israel is eligible as an associated third country. While a proposal was made to the European Commission to remove Israel’s access to hundreds of millions of Euros of research funding and collaboration opportunities, Euronews reports that German and Italian lawmakers requested more time to deal with the proposal, meaning it would not pass a vote.
In the United Kingdom, the Labour government that took office in 2024 reduced arms exports to Israel; however, this amounted to only 30 out of 350 different items. This was taken because of the risk of these particular weapons being used to break international humanitarian law by being used in Gaza. The German government similarly halted the export of certain weaponry to Israel, which could be used to launch attacks into Gaza in the summer of 2025. Some action that clearly distances such nations from Israel’s actions in the conflict, but does not sever ties completely between the nations.
While parliaments and foreign ministries began to use stronger language and small-scale weapon sale bans are signs that demonstrate some resistance against Israeli action in Gaza, few Western states have pushed to rupture diplomatic relations. In practice, much state action over the last two years has been incremental. Yet, with the USA’s ability to veto at the UN Security Council, much of the diplomatic effort is reduced to battles of words.
September 2025 And Mounting Pressure
What is notable about writing this article now is that some Eurovision participating broadcasters have announced plans to withdraw from the Song Contest if Israel participates. This echoes sentiments in other fields this September, which have amplified pressure to distance oneself from the actions of the Israeli state.
First, the New York Declaration, the results of a workshop on the future of Israel and Palestine at the UN, was voted on with a large majority of member states endorsing the proposal and the two-state solution it suggested.
Just days thereafter, the United Nations’ independent inquiry and human-rights machinery issued forceful findings. A UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry concluded in an authoritative report that the conduct in Gaza amounted to acts meeting the legal definition of genocide.
This political escalation was accompanied by cultural and sporting flashpoints. In the arts world, a campaign branded “No Music for Genocide” gathered more than 400 signatures from artists and record labels, demanding that their catalogues be removed from Israel. Over 4,000 film and television professionals signed a pledge to boycott Israeli film institutions, from festivals to cinemas. Paramount, one of the world’s largest media companies, argued that it would not “advance the cause for peace,” but the significant momentum increase reflects a dramatic rise in grassroots pressure.
In sport, similar developments unfolded. The Sestao Chess Club in Spain required Israeli players to compete under the neutral FIDE flag, a move not sanctioned by FIDE itself, which led to the withdrawal of Israeli participants. Meanwhile, the Vuelta a España faced mass protests: one stage in Bilbao was abandoned, and the finale in Madrid ended with 60 km to go, despite heavy policing to stop protests. At the centre of the controversy was the Israel Premier-Tech cycling team, whose team decided to remove the word “Israel” from their racing gear during the multi-day race to limit targeting from protesters.
And even in tennis, this month’s Davis Cup match between Canada and Israel was now played behind closed doors due to “increased safety concerns.”
The IOC responded with a reaffirmation of their 2024 statement, being “concerned by the disruption of competitions” but still stressing the need for sport to be a “sacred space” where political neutrality is important. The IOC doubled down on their principle of sporting inclusion despite the increased challenges.
Finally, the political culmination came when the United Kingdom, France, Canada, and Australia formally recognised the State of Palestine, tying recognition directly to the two-state solution and further sharpening global criticism of Israel. Israel condemned the move as a “huge reward to terrorism,” yet the move made clear, in black and white, that governments around the world have distanced themselves further than ever before from the state of Israel and its goals in the current conflict.
Beyond September 2025
There have been many calls, both inside and outside the Song Contest, to exclude KAN and therefore, exclude Israel, but as yet, none of the world’s similar organisations have considered exclusion as a step to take. If the team behind the EBU’s report on Israel’s participation is investigating other similar organisations on the planet, it is hard to see how it could recommend exclusion when Israel is a part of the international community.
But ramping up the rhetoric against Israel, which has grown in September 2025 with little sign of slowing, could be the moment that changes. This is the time when, be it in political, cultural, and sporting circles, resistance against Israeli inclusion has been at its strongest. The question now is, will this movement have an impact on any organisation large enough, so that today’s principles of Israeli inclusion will change?
Will the Eurovision Song Contest, with a review being written at this very moment, end up being the first?