How have other European countries responded to requests to exclude Israeli delegations from fairs and cultural events?
Executive summary
Several European public broadcasters reacted to calls to exclude Israeli delegations from cultural events by splitting along political, institutional and ethical lines: a cluster of broadcasters—including Spain’s RTVE, Ireland’s RTE, the Netherlands’ AVROTROS and Slovenia’s broadcaster—have withdrawn from Eurovision 2026 in protest at Israel’s inclusion, citing humanitarian concerns, press‑freedom violations and alleged interference, while others in Europe and the EBU defended keeping culture independent of sanctions and instead adopted procedural safeguards [1] [2] [3]. The dispute has exposed wider debates inside Europe about whether cultural forums should be instruments of foreign policy or neutral stages for engagement, with NGOs and petitions pushing for tougher state-level measures alongside broadcasters arguing for editorial independence [4] [5] [6].
1. Boycotts and withdrawals: principled abstentions by public broadcasters
A clear first-line response from several European broadcasters has been outright withdrawal: Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands and Slovenia publicly announced they will not participate in Eurovision 2026 after the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) effectively cleared Israel to compete, with those broadcasters framing their decision as incompatible with their public‑service duties amid the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and concerns about press freedom and alleged contest interference [1] [2] [7] [8]. Iceland’s RÚV signalled it might follow suit and later joined calls to boycott, and some reporting lists Iceland among those expected to withdraw, suggesting a bloc of culturally like‑minded broadcasters prioritizing moral protest over continuity [9] [10] [11].
2. Institutional defense of non‑politicization and editorial independence
Countervailing European responses stressed the norm that cultural events should not be converted into sanctions tools: the EBU opted not to hold a vote to exclude Israel and instead pushed “targeted changes” and tougher voting rules to safeguard neutrality, arguing the contest is organised by broadcasters not governments [2] [12] [3]. Several member broadcasters, and ministries such as France’s, publicly backed participation, warning that exclusion would set a dangerous precedent and that editorial independence of public media must be preserved [11] [4].
3. Underlying reasons: humanitarian outrage, media freedoms and allegations of manipulation
Broadcasters who sought exclusion or withdrew linked their moves to concrete grievances: the scale of civilian casualties in Gaza and reported restrictions on journalists were cited as moral imperatives, and some broadcasters also referenced allegations of prior contest voting interference that raised questions about procedural fairness [1] [7] [3]. Advocacy groups and petitions amplified public pressure—Change.org petitions and open letters from cultural figures pushed broadcasters to act, while NGOs like Reporters Without Borders urged broader policy levers such as suspension of EU agreements with Israel over violations [5] [6].
4. Political fault lines and strategic calculations across Europe
Responses have not been uniform and reveal political calculations: some states and broadcasters feared the long‑term consequences of setting a cultural‑ban precedent—Germany previously warned it would withdraw only if Israel were excluded, while France actively opposed a cultural boycott—illustrating that national foreign‑policy stances, domestic public opinion and broadcaster funding imperatives shape choices as much as principle [11] [13] [4]. The EBU vote showed a large majority backed procedural changes rather than exclusion, but sizeable minorities and abstentions underline deep divisions [2] [13].
5. What this means for future requests to exclude delegations
The Eurovision episode signals that European responses to calls for exclusion of Israeli delegations will follow a mixed pattern: expect targeted broadcaster boycotts by those treating cultural platforms as leverage, institutional defenses of non‑politicized cultural arenas by international organizers and allied broadcasters, and continued pressure from NGOs and civil society for state‑level sanctions or treaty‑level measures—while procedural safeguards and opaque voting remain the immediate compromise that organizers prefer to avoid outright expulsions [3] [2] [6]. Reporting does not provide a comprehensive catalogue of reactions to other fairs and cultural events beyond Eurovision; available sources focus on this contest as the principal flashpoint (p1_s1–[1]1).