Eurovision: the aftermatch

Israel at the Eurovision Song Contest — When the Public Makes the Wrong Choice (According to the Media) 

The 2025 Eurovision Song Contest is behind us, but the aftermath of the results continues to stir emotions. Not because it was a particularly exciting musical year — frankly, there have been better editions — but because one result, apparently, was not allowed: that of Israel. Although the country received just 60 points from the professional juries, barely securing a spot in the top 10, the European public voted Israel into second place with an impressive 297 televote points. No other country received more points from the public. This gap between jury and public led to raised eyebrows, insinuations, and even official investigations. It seems increasingly clear that, for many media outlets and institutions, the problem is not the result itself — but the fact that the public ignores their moral framing. 

In Spain, this result even prompted an official response from RTVE, the Spanish public broadcaster, which immediately announced an audit of the televoting system. The reason? Israel received zero points from the Spanish jury, but the maximum 12 from the Spanish public. Such a stark contrast naturally raises questions — but mostly among those who can’t accept that the public might simply form a different judgment than the so-called “experts.” Where were these calls for investigations when Switzerland or the United Kingdom received high jury scores but barely — or not a single — point from the public? Why no outrage when the UK — with a strong production and international name — received 88 jury points, but not a single point from televoters? 

The double standard is glaring. The outrage over Israel’s result is not about transparency or fairness. It’s an expression of ideological frustration. Frustration that the public refuses to behave as expected. That they do not automatically fall in line with the increasingly loud anti-Israel narrative present in parts of the European press. In that sense, this whole Eurovision controversy is a perfect miniature of a broader dynamic: the widening gap between the narrative of cultural and political elites on the one hand, and the judgment of ordinary citizens on the other. 

And then there’s the question of “influence.” Some commentators — subtly or not — have suggested that Israel’s public success was the result of organized campaigns or the shadowy workings of a “Jewish lobby.” But how credible is that, really? In Belgium, for instance, the entire Jewish population is estimated at around 30,000 — barely a drop in the national demographic, let alone capable of swaying a pan-European televoting system. The idea that they somehow manipulated the outcome en masse is not only absurd, it borders on classic conspiracy thinking. And the fact that such suggestions are not openly and firmly rejected is troubling in itself. 

The discomfort lies deeper: the Israeli song, the performance, and the artist simply resonated with many people. They brought quality, energy, emotion. What if this exact same act had come from Armenia, Finland, or Slovenia? Would the Spanish and Belgian media also be demanding an audit? Would they still be hinting that something was fishy about the vote? Or would they celebrate it as a surprise fan favorite, a welcome addition to the diversity of the festival? 

That may be the most painful conclusion of all: that songs are no longer judged on artistic merit, but on their geopolitical origin. That “the public has spoken” only counts when the public says the right things. The moment the audience expresses a view that contradicts the media’s moral line, that view becomes suspect. Investigated. Audited. The issue isn’t the voting system — the issue is the result, and who benefitted from it. 

Perhaps it’s time for newsrooms and broadcasters to take a long, hard look in the mirror. The fault doesn’t lie with the public, but with the bias that refuses to accept that people might judge Israel differently than what they are told to. Anyone who only accepts freedom of opinion when they agree with it, has not understood the meaning of freedom.