Israel’s Eurovision 2nd place: False consensus or musical machiavellianism?

Eurovision is peculiar. On the surface, it is a simple, if eccentric, song competition which intends to highlight the unity of competing nations. In theory, it casts aside divisions for a shared stage, prompting cohesion centred around the powerful medium of song. Despite its desire to distance itself from the political sphere, Eurovision has become a battleground for ideologues, international relations, and insurrection against establishment views. It has become an uncontainable ‘political beast’ of its own accord, and that has never been more apparent than at this year’s competition.

In spite of the ongoing conflict with Hamas, Israel was allowed to compete. It went on to claim a surprise second place, duly sparking outrage across the continent. Two dominant interpretations have been reached surrounding the outcome: one suggests it was an Israeli soft power scheme to direct attention away from the war in Gaza; the other posits that the competition’s voters are less frustrated with Israeli leadership than wider discourse has led us to believe.

The inescapable influence of foreign affairs within the world’s premier song contest means politically popular nations often thrive, and unpopular nations frequently falter and do so severely

Removing politics from Eurovision entirely is impossible. Politics is, after all, everywhere, all the time, and for the politically invested, Eurovision is as much a litmus test for geopolitical relations as it is an entertaining, quirky song contest. Terry Wogan, who commentated on the event for 35 years in the UK, infamously criticised the competition’s biased voting, scolding nations who provide maximum points to countries with subpar performances because of allyship or withhold points for show-stoppers because of strained diplomatic relations, from which post-Brexit Britain has suffered worse than most (although routinely “bland, derivative, forgettable” songs certainly don’t help). The inescapable influence of foreign affairs within the world’s premier song contest means politically popular nations often thrive, and unpopular nations frequently falter and do so severely.

Israel’s 2nd place subverts this trend; the nation is deeply unpopular at the moment, but still, its entrant won the public vote, only falling to 2nd as a result of Eurovision’s jury. Israel’s long-standing conflict with Hamas is burdened with complex historical grievances, constituting immense harm on both sides. Nonetheless, solely from the angle of geopolitical popularity, it has tanked worldwide approval of the Israeli state. Long-standing allies, including the UK and France, have “lost patience” with Israel, expressing great anger at the humanitarian crisis occurring in Gaza, particularly to children, where it has been reported that a child is killed every 45 minutes.

With such a conflict looming over the nation, a demonstrably abysmal Eurovision result for Israel was expected. Come the Grand Final, however, Israel’s Yuval Raphael lost out to only Austria’s JJ, achieving a shock 2nd place finish – a rogue note in an otherwise predictable melody.

The synergistic effect of Israel encouraging the mass mobilisation of ballots within an easily manipulated voting system and Palestinian solidarity-driven disengagement culminated in a jarring result, which appears incongruent with current geopolitical events

Mere minutes before Yuval Raphael’s performance began, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu posted an Instagram plea asking individuals to vote for their entry ‘New Day Will Rise’ “20 times!”. Israel’s official Instagram and TikTok accounts urged its followers to vote for the nation’s entry no less than 10 times on the day of the competition. An Israeli government agency even paid for targeted advertising. Such an active attempt to drum up support is incomparable to any other country in the competition, and Israel has subsequently been accused of manipulating Eurovision’s voting system (which oddly allows for one individual to ballot 20 times) in a bid to appear falsely popular. Numerous broadcasters, including those from Ireland, the Netherlands, and Spain, have called for an investigation into the legitimacy of the result from the public vote.

Furthermore, amid calls for Israel to be barred from competing, Eurovision has lost favour with Palestinian supporters as a result of perceived “complicit[y] in the normalisation of genocide”. One such group at this University was Warwick Stands With Palestine, which organised an alternative ‘Palvision’ event to encourage individuals not to watch the main event. The synergistic effect of Israel encouraging the mass mobilisation of ballots within an easily manipulated voting system and Palestinian solidarity-driven disengagement culminated in a jarring result, which appears incongruent with current geopolitical events.

Still, perhaps there is something to be said of a false consensus partially bearing its head. Focusing on the UK, despite 7 in 10 Britons desiring a ceasefire in Gaza, only 9% of the population sympathise more with Palestine than Israel in the context of the current conflict, suggesting Israel retains a base of support more resilient than many assume. In the same poll, 56% expressed sympathy with neither or were unsure. By including those who lean more towards Israel, you are left with just over a quarter of Brits outright supporting Palestine, a significantly smaller section of the population than I posit many would anticipate. While specific values will vary between nations, the notion that Israeli opposition is less widespread than expected endures internationally.

The surprise element of Israel’s Eurovision 2nd place is not the result of intentional Israeli political manoeuvring nor a potent false consensus alone. More likely, it is a consequence of both

While residing within a concentration of shared viewpoints, many assume their stance is society-wide, a cognitive bias known as the false consensus effect. For example, most readers of this piece will be university students, who, due to their age, will be more likely to passionately support the Palestinian cause. A campus echo chamber, or any echo chamber for that matter, can disguise a perspective as nationwide or global when, in reality, cohesion on an issue is wrongly assumed, despite a great plurality of beliefs persisting.

The surprise element of Israel’s Eurovision 2nd place is not the result of intentional Israeli political manoeuvring nor a potent false consensus alone. More likely, it is a consequence of both, as Israel actively attempts to distance itself from the ongoing war in Gaza, and the champions of the Palestinian cause boycott the competition, all amid a mismatch between perceived and actual public sentiment. The clearest certainty, however, is that Eurovision has never been a stage for music but instead the squabbles of the international order.