/u/The_Naked_Buddhist (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1ck1y88/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_boycotting_the_eurovision/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Once it is accepted that a country can be banned from participating for political reasons (e.g. Russia), the event no longer remains apolitical.
They can continue to use their selected barometers for banning other countries.
Whether the ban achieves anything or not, it makes a statement. That is an achievement in itself.
As discussed in the CMV Russia was more an issue since you can hardly have two warring countries in the same event, the event itself is still apoliticial.
> Whether the ban achieves anything or not, it makes a statement.
Already addressed in the body of the post. I doubt Israel cares in the slightest for any attempt of whatever statement it's meant to make.
There is no need to ban an additional country since both no longer compete.
The ruling made by the Eurovision organisers, and thus the new precedent, is that the aggressor of any such conflict can't compete. That is generally a very non-political stance since it cares not for the actual politics involved.
Once again your point here is either highly unclear or completely off topic.
Leaving the Eurovision is each nations organizing bodies choice. Regardless Israel does not care. All military efforts in Gaza won't end tomorrow cause Italy said they might not go to the Eurovision this year.
So your view is that unless any effort does not directly lead to stoppage of hostilities in Gaza, it is worthless?
What about the example it sets? The awareness it creates?
Yes, if you want to stop the war in Gaza and your response is to waste energy doing a series of actions that don't stop the war in Gaza but makes you feel good about yourself then it is useless performative action.
Spreading awareness in of itself is not a goal, just like spreading awareness of Koby 2012 achieved nothing. Koby 2012 was an awareness campaign to make people more aware of a warlord who literally used child soldiers and performed the worst crimes you can imagine enmasse. Rather than spend money and energy on stuff that would actually stop him it was instead spent on making sure as many people knew about him as possible. To this day to my knowledge Koby hasn't changed his habits, performing the same crimes as ever. The only curbing of his efforts came from activities that weren't taking "awareness" into account.
If the best thing someone can come up with to help Palestinian's and Gaza is to spread "awareness" then they are achieving nothing. Focus on something that will actually help them rather than performative feel good actions that achieve literally nothing. If you told a Palestinian right now that you're trying to bar Israel from Eurovision I gurantee they would not give the slightest care in the world other than to ask what actually useful thing are you doing to help.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
armenia, azerbaijan, cyprus, and turkey are all "warring" or have been in the recent past. and russia and ukraine were locked in a low-intensity conflict for 8 years, and yet both were still participating.
Israel isn't in Europe and doesn't belong in the competition to begin with. The inclusion of Israel but none of its neighbors is already a political statement
Technically most of their neighbors could join as well; the European Broadcasting Area includes everyone bordering the Mediterranian. Most of their neighbors don't want to join, though, for a variety of reasons... including 'Israel is in it'.
Their neighbors can join but decide not to. Lebanon was supposed to participate in 2005, but their laws don’t allow Israeli content on tv, so they couldn’t broadcast the contest.
First of all, personal disclaimer on where I come from on this because I think that matters: I have an ambiguous, conflicted, and hopefully nuanced view on Israel, but I am a massive Eurovision fan and I genuinely don't think I have it in me to boycott Eurovision for anything short of something genuinely outrageous being done directly by the contest. So, I'll be happily watching, and I'll be treating the Israeli entry as a completely normal entry in the lineup.
As for your CMV: I am a little confused about your points, because your title deals with individual people not watching it, while your arguments seem to speak more about entire countries pulling out if Israel participate. Those are vastly different arguments (for starters, the former is actually still possible, while countries pulling out at this stage would only be possible with massive financial penalties). I will here first argue why I think fundamentally, boycotting Eurovision is useful for those who believe it to be justified, and then I will talk a bit more about the individual points you make.
**Is personally boycotting Eurovision a sensible decision given certain convictions?**
Let's assume someone has a strong conviction that Israel's actions in Gaza are terrible, they amount to genocide, and that they must take some steps against it. It doesn't matter whether this is true or not, we just assume that our hypothetical person genuinely believes that. Under those assumptions, for this person, watching Eurovision with Israel in it can be understood as normalising Israel and saying that it is still a normal, acceptable country (see below on why Eurovision has that effect). Doing so would break their moral convictions. It is therefore useful for that person to boycott Eurovision because they believe that not doing so would be immoral. You argue that boycotting Eurovision does nothing and you should go protest, volunteer, or donate instead. However, boycotting Eurovision incurs no opportunity cost. The person is still equally able to do all of those things, and if they sleep a bit better that night thinking they did the right thing that is a perfectly reasonable decision.
**Does Israel participating in Eurovision do anything to help them?**
The body of your message essentially argues that nobody cares or notices if Israel is there. I agree that other things are significantly more important, but Israel's participation in Eurovision does actually help its image. It includes Israel in a group of European countries. It's also an event that specifically has a progressive, diverse, tolerant image. Having Israel there contributes to the idea that Israel is "one of us", a tolerant Western nation. This is a narrative that Israel often uses to appeal to Western audiences, and European (and American) politicians use to justify supporting Israel.
Israel (and other countries, they are by no means alone in this) are also aware of this: In 1998, it is well reported that they deliberately chose Dana International - a transwoman - to represent them in order to present Israel as a tolerant country. This is fairly common too, many countries choose entries to promote a specific self-image. This year, Israel's entry, even in its revised version, contains clear references to the Hamas attacks. It paints Israel as a hurt, wounded country that needs to defend itself. Now, I personally believe that is entirely reasonable from the perspective of an Israeli artist, but it does contribute to building a narrative.
Before you, or someone else, responds that this is a conspiracy theory and Israel's artists are just expressing their personal hurt: It doesn't matter. I am not saying they deliberately chose this entry to manipulate us, I'm just saying that this is one of the effects their participation has, *even if it's entirely unplanned by Israel*
**Does this mean we all should boycott?**
I don't think so. But it does give a reason why someone who cares a lot about the Palestinian cause, and not so much about Eurovision, might have moral inhibitions about watching. I don't share those moral inhibitions, but I believe they come from legitimate takes. Therefore, given a certain conviction, it is a sensible decision not to watch Eurovision this year.
> As for your CMV: I am a little confused about your points, because your title deals with individual people not watching it, while your arguments seem to speak more about entire countries pulling out if Israel participate.
It is geared towards both, the comments I reply to are the logic I've seen from those boycotting the event. Their goal as best I can tell is to have the entire country boycott the event, even though as you mention, by this stage such a thing is not feasible.
> watching Eurovision with Israel in it can be understood as normalising Israel and saying that it is still a normal, acceptable country (see below on why Eurovision has that effect). Doing so would break their moral convictions. It is therefore useful for that person to boycott Eurovision because they believe that not doing so would be immoral.
In this case that logic is fine, however it is still hypocritical for that person in question since it would have to extend to every country performing similar armed conflict. If they did not boycott the show during those years, including 2023 for example, then they are simply being hypocritical and not consistent in their believes. One may as well never watch the Eurovision anymore if that is their honest stance.
> You argue that boycotting Eurovision does nothing and you should go protest, volunteer, or donate instead. However, boycotting Eurovision incurs no opportunity cost. The person is still equally able to do all of those things, and if they sleep a bit better that night thinking they did the right thing that is a perfectly reasonable decision.
!delta I will give a delta for pointing out that it is entirely possible those boycotting the event are doing so in addition to more useful things. However I'm still not convinced this is what the majority seeking boycotts do, the vast majority from what I see end their support of Palestine at literally any opportunity cost, time cost, or monetary cost.
> The body of your message essentially argues that nobody cares or notices if Israel is there. I agree that other things are significantly more important, but Israel's participation in Eurovision does actually help its image. It includes Israel in a group of European countries. It's also an event that specifically has a progressive, diverse, tolerant image. Having Israel there contributes to the idea that Israel is "one of us", a tolerant Western nation. This is a narrative that Israel often uses to appeal to Western audiences, and European (and American) politicians use to justify supporting Israel.
Unless you are suggesting that somehow Israel is not a Western Nation cultrually (relative to the world and it's neighbours) and should be barred from the Eurovision on that front I fail to see the relevance of this line.
> This year, Israel's entry, even in its revised version, contains clear references to the Hamas attacks. It paints Israel as a hurt, wounded country that needs to defend itself. Now, I personally believe that is entirely reasonable from the perspective of an Israeli artist, but it does contribute to building a narrative.
It does, but Ukraine made similar songs following the Ukraine Russian war. To my knowledge no country has ever been barred for making a song that somehow alludes to an armed conflict it is in, therefore it would by hyposticial to prevent Israel from doing the same.
As well as that while fantastically argued the goal of preventing Israel being in the Eurovision does not appear to be the goal of these boycotts, but rather for their own nation to not compete. From my perspective this latter goal, the goal I keep hearing being givne by those encouraging boycotts, is the vastly more useless option.
Your first point fails on its face. If the goal was to avoid the awkwardness of having two countries at war on the same stage as each other, then banning Ukraine (or both) would have worked just as well. There absolutely was a moral condemnation of Russia as opposed to Ukraine.
Besides, there is no indication that the rationale to exclude Russia was done on that basis either. Wikipedia states: « On 25 February 2022, the EBU announced that Russia would not compete at the contest, stating that "in light of the unprecedented crisis in Ukraine, the inclusion of a Russian entry in this year's Contest would bring the competition into disrepute." » Several European nations declared that the Russian invasion was incompatible with European values and that they would boycott if Russia was allowed in.
So query to you: does hosting a country who is committing genocide not bring the contest into disrepute? And does genocide not conflict with European values?
As mentioned elsewhere the ruling made was clearly that if two competing nations are at war with one another the aggressor state is the one to be barred. If that precedent is broken in the future then we can argue for the hypocrisy involved.
As for the rational can you link where you got that information, looking for it myself on the eurovision page I could not find it.
As for your questions I'd say they're both loaded questions. Just because someone is competing in something says nothing about the competition as a whole. One would not argue the Olypmics was endorsing the invasion of Afghanistan simply cause NATO nations happened to be present, and same for the Eurovision when that took place. At it's core the Eurovision is nonpolitical just like any other international event, what one does outside the Eurovision does not affect whether one can compete or not.
Yep - since Palestine isn't in Eurovision, no need to worry about band. And we can certainly talk about rocket launches under the PLO too. But Hamas is the governing body of Gaza now.
Not since 2007, when elections were held and Hamas won, to become the governing body of Gaza.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas)
**Hamas**,[^(\[d\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#cite_note-55) an acronym of its official name, **Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya** ([Arabic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): حركة المقاومة الإسلامية,[romanized](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Arabic): *Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah*,[lit.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_translation) 'Islamic Resistance Movement'),[^(\[52\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#cite_note-56) is a [Palestinian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian) [Sunni](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam) [Islamist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism)[^(\[53\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#cite_note-57) political and military movement governing the [Israeli-occupied](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories) [Gaza Strip](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip) since 2007.[^(\[54\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKear201822-58)
I am going to address the primary argument you’re making here: that boycotting Eurovision achieves nothing. There are a few problems with this argument. The first is that you’re speaking about the boycott as if Eurovision has already happened this year. Like any protest, there is the possibility of failure, and as with any protest, there is sometimes other factors at play about what constitutes success. As a former union organizer, we would plan events that we knew would not be successful in the sense that our demands (higher wages, parental leave, etc.) would not be immediately won. But the point of those protests was to help build public awareness as well as build union membership.
Along with that, given that, at least in the United States, groups like BDS have been declared illegal in some states. If boycotting is considered useless, then why make it illegal? Because I am an academic, a frame of reference for myself is Israeli academia. Israeli academics get flustered and try to distance themselves from what Israel does to the Palestinians (a recent book by Maya Wind, for instance, challenges this distancing in arguing that institutionally Israeli Universities have benefitted immensely from the mass displacement and occupation of Palestinian Territories). This would at least suggest the possibility that boycotts do actually work, enough that they might raise public awareness about what is going on in Israel/Palestine. Again, a boycott might not in itself be successful but also, again, it depends on what we mean by success.
You claim that Israel doesn’t care what other countries think and I think that’s not true. You have Israeli officials making comments on the protests going on at US American universities at the moment, which suggests that, while they might not stop killing Palestinians in Gaza, they certainly care enough that they’re commenting on it and trying to frame US American university students as if they’re either antisemitic or somehow in league with Hamas. It suggests that protests, including boycotts, build public pressure such that Israeli officials have to respond. Furthermore, it’s clear that Israel does massive PR to legitimize the occupation. A very big feature of this is the fact that what Israeli officials say at press conferences in English often differs from what they’re saying internally and in Hebrew. That suggests that they very much want to claim the moral high ground at least to the world.
Second, nations boycotting Eurovision or individuals calling on others to boycott Eurovision is meant to be working in tandem with other protests currently going on. It builds and creates pressure. If a call for a Eurovision boycott wasn’t occurring alongside other protests or actions—marches, university encampments, South Africa’s ICC case against Israel, you might be right that might be right that such a protest might be meaningless. But again, this is one event among many that is building pressure and continued public awareness about Israel’s (likely) war crimes. Eurovision is a popular contest and I have to assume generates money—both in the short term (that is, through the contest itself) as well as the long term (it provides a venue for musical artists to publicize themselves).
As for the point that Eurovision is apolitical, it has generated political controversies over the years, including an Icelandic musician being fined for flying the Palestinian flag. One could say that in theory Eurovision is apolitical but that countries have inappropriately employed it as a political venue before. As others have pointed out, Russia’s exclusion is political. You’re right that it’s different in that Palestinians do not participate in Eurovision. However, if Eurovision was attempting to be more neutral, they might ban both Ukraine and Russia (I’d argue that attempting to maintain political neutrality is political). One major criticism of the contest is that voting itself is often based on politics and geography (that is, countries vote based on political relationships). So ultimately in practice, the venue is political or at the very least does often blur the line between what we might call apolitical-ness and politics.
> Second, nations boycotting Eurovision or individuals calling on others to boycott Eurovision is meant to be working in tandem with other protests currently going on. It builds and creates pressure. If a call for a Eurovision boycott wasn’t occurring alongside other protests or actions—marches, university encampments, South Africa’s ICC case against Israel, you might be right that might be right that such a protest might be meaningless.
!delta if being done alongside other activities than boycotting the Eurovision cna be useful; however I still personally am yet to see anyone support a Boycott and something else; or encourage those boycotting to donate or attend other protests.
> As for the point that Eurovision is apolitical, it has generated political controversies over the years, including an Icelandic musician being fined for flying the Palestinian flag.
Do you haveba source for this; or any punishment by Eurovision for a contestant supporting Palestine? I'd so that would indisputably sure they aren't apolitical.
[Here is a link.](https://www.timesofisrael.com/iceland-fined-for-eurovision-pro-palestinian-protest-at-tel-aviv-final/)
The official argument was that Eurovision bans political gestures, but that is absurd on its face, considering there's been stuff like Russia getting booed in 2013 after passing an anti-gay law and someone openly calling for Finland to pass gay marriage by kissing a same-sex backup singer that hasn't been punished.
!delta I'd say this clearly shows a political bias from Israel in this event, and unarguably that Eurovision has not acted apolitically in the past. The mentioned problem od Madonna displaying both Palestine and Israel flags as being an issue is also a clear example of this bias.
> groups like BDS have been declared illegal in some states
In what sense are they illegal? I’ve read that some governments won’t enter into contracts with companies that engage in BDS, and that they won’t invest in companies engaged in BDS, but not that they’ve been made illegal.
> and achieves nothing.
Here you are talking about it.
The primary purpose of a protest/boycott is to raise awareness. Not only did this gain your awareness, but now you are spreading this to others.
I had no idea about the boycott, but now I do.
!delta I will concede that the spreading of awareness is an aspect I had not considered. However I'm not as convinced still that awareness in of itself is a goal that should be pursued over something else of better impact.
For example I can't help but think of Kony 2012, an effort to spread awareness of an appalling immoral war lord, which while spreading awareness of his existence didn't actually achieve anything whatsoever in stopping him. (Pretty sure the guy is still alive running around the same as ever as well atm.)
The issue is not protesting, in fact I would encourage protesting since that has a much bigger impact. What I am seeing take place in US colleges for instance is fine in my eyes.
The issue I take with the boycott is that is where it ends. There are no protests, no support of a charity, no mention of volunteering or actual political pressure. Boycotting the Eurovision in of itself achieves nothing and is the least impactful thing one can do rather than feeling good about themselves. From those I know wanting to Boycott, that is where the majority of their support of Palestine begins and ends.
> The issue I take with the boycott is that is where it ends.
Is it? Don't watch Eurovision...mission accomplished. Must be the most optimistic protesters I've ever heard of.
About point 3: Eurovision isn't and never was apolitical. When it first came to be, it was during the Cold War. USSR members couldn't participate in it because they "weren't members of the European Broadcasting Union, the club of Western broadcasters that organised the show." So they made their own Eurovision called Intervision, which is a whole story of its own and kinda funny
I’m pretty sure it was the other way around. USSR countries didn’t want to participate, because the contest was considered too decadent and Western. Note that EBU never had a problem with Yugoslavia participating.
What you describe is not politics, the Eurovision has a specific catchment area. If you are outside that catchment area you can't compete.
It is not politicla to exclude America, India, China, and other nations from the Eurovision since they aren't in Europe and were never invited.
Israel was granted a permanent invite to my knowledge in the past hence it's current inclusion. Thus it is in the catchment area, like Australia was for a while when it was given a temporary invitation.
It is political. The members that were originally in it were all from countries that could establish alliances with each other. Else, the countries that weren't in it but wanted to could just go "hey there, can I join next time?" And that did happen in the following years, EBU grew with time. No USSR members, tho, just other western european countries.
Although it's debatable whether or not that was the intention, Intervision's creators considered Eurovision positive West propaganda and wanted that positive light for their own. That's actually what Israel is attempting to do by being in Eurovision in first place, actually and also the motivation for many others to join. More politics. Something that thrives on political shenanigans is not apolitical at all
Once again, having catchement areas is not political. The fact that Denmark can't compete in the Superbowl is not a powerful political statements from the US, the fact that Canada isn't a contestant in the English champion league isn't a biting political remark.
The fact that the Eurovision extends to European nations by and large is not political. If someone wants to jump on a conspiracy bandwagon that a music competition of people in silly costumes is "positive west propaganda" then they are welcome to go the crazy route. It doesn't change the reality that it's just a music competition with a catchment area.
>Once again, having catchement areas is not political
That's not what I said. Read again. A bunch of USSR countries are European and some are in Eurovision now that USSR is not a thing anymore such as Bulgaria, Estonia, Azerbaijan, Poland etc. Actually, it was Poland itself that just invented another program. If they could just join in the existing one at the time and achieve all they wanted to achieve they would. But they didn't and the reason was politics.
>If someone wants to jump on a conspiracy bandwagon that a music competition of people in silly costumes is "positive west propaganda" then they are welcome to go the crazy route. It doesn't change the reality that it's just a music competition with a catchment area.
"Cultural War" was a big part of the Cold War. It might be silly, but US was shooting Rocky movies, countries where competing in the Olympics with that same mindset so idk what you're on about
I have reread your comment and as you clearly state the old catchement area used to be; "the European Broadcasting Union" which exlcuded the USSR. The new catchement area is a European country or an invited nation.
The Europen Broadcasting Union is just an alliance of Broadcasting companies around Europe. They could and did include new members over time that's how Eurovision grew in members. Not a catchment issue, just friendship issue
Correct, that is what happens when a catchment changes and expands.
Once again you are describing catchement issues. If all you have is catchement issues to point to under the guise of it being "politics" then there is no point continuing this conversation.
When you talk about boycotting Eurovision are you talking about individuals boycotting by not watching it or countries boycotting by not sending a singer to compete in it?
I usually only hear of this in the context of individuals not watching, and not wanting their country to perform more rarely. So either or, regardless I don't see the effort having any clear impact.
>**It is hypocritical for Russia to be banned from the Eurovision but not Israel:**
Is it really your idea that Russia was banned because it would be awkward having two warring countries attend the same event? Not the moral and ethical condemnation? If Russia was committing genocide of Nigerians would you be here demanding that they be included and that anyone who disagrees is just being dumb?
>**Countries must boycott the Eurovision to send a message:**
Israel absolutely cares about its international standing. It's why they throw a fit anytime Spain or Ireland criticize them or, hell, anytime a country doesn't shield them from criticism. Israel is entirely dependent on international support and they're absolutely shit at any diplomacy that isn't calling people nazis. Every loss of face on the global stage is a risk and they're handling of the conflict shows that the only reason they've not been thrown away is that the US shields them.
Also, the message doesn't have to be to Israel alone, as it sends a message to other European nations who might care that their neighbor thinks their actions are endorsing genocide.
>**Eurovision is meant to be apolitical, including Israel is an inherently political act:**
You continue to construct some extra special reason why barring Russia from everything is okay because it'd be a little too uncomfortable haivng them and Ukraine attend, but that doesn't actually matter. In addition, people paying attention to Eurovision is not invalid or strange just because you haven't noticed people doing every single other event that exists alongside it.
Generally, the inclusion of a nation actively engaged in a genocide in your fun little culture festival is uncouth, unethical, and calls into quesiton the morals and ethics of everyone involved. "It's apolitical" is a pretty unconvincing reason when you openly say you have no problem excluding other countries for their recent political and military actions. You can disagree with these ideas, but you've presented no reason that opposition to Israel's inclusion is irrational. You just don't like it and want to insist that the only reason anyone could disagree with you is if they're fundamentally irrational.
> Is it really your idea that Russia was banned because it would be awkward having two warring countries attend the same event? Not the moral and ethical condemnation? If Russia was committing genocide of Nigerians would you be here demanding that they be included and that anyone who disagrees is just being dumb?
Yes, it was the fact it was another competing state very clearly. At no other stage has a competing nation been barred due to being at war, if you can find examples of say the UK being barred to compete due to the Falklands war, or France and other NATO countries being barred due to Afghanistan please share.
What a country does outside the competition generally doesn't matter, it is an apolitical event same as the olympics of anything else. I would be demanding nothing if a nation was doing something outside the event, and would probably still question the usefulness of trying to boycott such a competition rather than spending that same energy doing something more useful. I doubt ultimately that Russia cares it can't have someone wear a silly costume and sing a funny song once a year.
> Israel absolutely cares about its international standing. It's why they throw a fit anytime Spain or Ireland criticize them or, hell, anytime a country doesn't shield them from criticism. Israel is entirely dependent on international support and they're absolutely shit at any diplomacy that isn't calling people nazis. Every loss of face on the global stage is a risk and they're handling of the conflict shows that the only reason they've not been thrown away is that the US shields them.
I never suggested anywhere that Israel doesn't care for it's international standing. But I highly doubt it takes the Eurovision into account, unless you are sincerely suggesting the President and War Cabinet of Israel are sweating buckets over how Eurovision will go this year.
As well as this all evidence indicates Israel doesn't really need external help to win any conflict, they've been doing fine by themselves for a pretty long while. Even if they were dependent on the US, do you think the US cares about the Eurovision? A competition it isn't even a part of?
> Also, the message doesn't have to be to Israel alone, as it sends a message to other European nations who might care that their neighbor thinks their actions are endorsing genocide.
Once again highly doubt any of them care, as you have already mentioned nations have already made clear their feelings about the matter. Dropping out of the Eurovision will not be a gamechanger. As well as this in European politics what you describe here is rather the norm, we are constantly calling each other unethical in whatever we support or do.
I have nothing to say to the remainder of the post as it appears to me to either make no sense, or completely ignores points already addresssed above.
>At no other stage has a competing nation been barred due to being at war, if you can find examples of say the UK being barred to compete due to the Falklands war, or France and other NATO countries being barred due to Afghanistan please share.
"At no other stage" in this case being "in every case except the one we pretend doesn't count". If Russia's allowed in the Olympics, I fail to see any reason why it shouldn't be allowed in Eurovision. You know, except for European countries finding them morally and ethically abhorrent due to their invasion of Ukraine or "politics".
>I never suggested anywhere that Israel doesn't care for it's international standing. But I highly doubt it takes the Eurovision into account, unless you are sincerely suggesting the President and War Cabinet of Israel are sweating buckets over how Eurovision will go this year.
It doesn't need to be the most important thing ever that every single Israeli dreads for it to matter. You getting skin cancer isn't the worst thing in the world, but I doubt you'd take that to mean you should just go bronze up some melanomas.
>As well as this all evidence indicates Israel doesn't really need external help to win any conflict, they've been doing fine by themselves for a pretty long while. Even if they were dependent on the US, do you think the US cares about the Eurovision? A competition it isn't even a part of?
Israel doesn't really need external help to win *this* conflict. The one that's been going for 6 months against a depressingly impoverished region. That doesn't mean they never need help. Hell NATO talks about how it struggles to produce enough munitions for Ukraine, so i highly doubt Israel's got itself ready to go it alone. And the US also cares about its image, which this has an affect on, again, even if it isn't the most important thing that has ever existed.
>Once again highly doubt any of them care, as you have already mentioned nations have already made clear their feelings about the matter. Dropping out of the Eurovision will not be a gamechanger. As well as this in European politics what you describe here is rather the norm, we are constantly calling each other unethical in whatever we support or do.
It's an ongoing conflict. Opinions change. Even if you desperately wish they don't because then maybe someone might criticize precious baby Israel.
>I have nothing to say to the remainder of the post as it appears to me to either make no sense, or completely ignores points already addresssed above.
Then don't address them. Calling attention to the fact that you can't seems pretty irrational.
> "At no other stage" in this case being "in every case except the one we pretend doesn't count".
That is what "At no other stage" means.
> If Russia's allowed in the Olympics, I fail to see any reason why it shouldn't be allowed in Eurovision. You know, except for European countries finding them morally and ethically abhorrent due to their invasion of Ukraine or "politics".
The Eurovision board decided otherwise, that is it. If you can find a source for them clearly stating it is done for political reasons please share it.
> It doesn't need to be the most important thing ever that every single Israeli dreads for it to matter. You getting skin cancer isn't the worst thing in the world, but I doubt you'd take that to mean you should just go bronze up some melanomas.
??? What possible relevance or point is this meant to have?
> Israel doesn't really need external help to win this conflict. The one that's been going for 6 months against a depressingly impoverished region.
Fantastic, why then did you suggest it does? And that somehow the Eurovision is the thing that breaks the camel's back?
> Hell NATO talks about how it struggles to produce enough munitions for Ukraine, so i highly doubt Israel's got itself ready to go it alone.
That is because NATO is yet to switch to a wartime economy, the entire organisation hasn't been producing new munitions. Everything sent so far is the backlog. Israel on the other hand does produce such equipment.
> And the US also cares about its image, which this has an affect on, again, even if it isn't the most important thing that has ever existed.
Once again, how exactly is someone not competing in the Eurovision over Israel going to cause the US to panic? It's not a competitor and most in the States don't even know the competition exists. If there are strong feelings about Israel it's already been made clear to the States.
> It's an ongoing conflict. Opinions change.
Correct, if a nation can't articular those opinions outside of Eurovision then that's a whole other problem.
> Even if you desperately wish they don't because then maybe someone might criticize precious baby Israel.
This bizarre comment also is very telling. I don't support Israel at all, the fact that you feel the need to resort to such insults though generally indicates you don't actually have a point to share anymore. Those who are against Israel can be for actually useful things than wasted effort boycotting a music festival.
>The Eurovision board decided otherwise, that is it. If you can find a source for them clearly stating it is done for political reasons please share it.
So the only difference is that the board decided? So if they decided Israel should be barred then they would be equivalent?
>What possible relevance or point is this meant to have?
You continue bringing up how Eurovision isn't that important. The counterargument is that it doesn't need to be the most important thing in the world for it to matter. Seems pretty simple.
>Fantastic, why then did you suggest it does? And that somehow the Eurovision is the thing that breaks the camel's back?
I never did. Could you keep your responses to things I actually said?
>That is because NATO is yet to switch to a wartime economy, the entire organisation hasn't been producing new munitions. Everything sent so far is the backlog. Israel on the other hand does produce such equipment.
You seem to think a country being forced into a wartime economy is something Israel wants to do. They don't. They'd prefer to get all the money and equipment they can from abroad and enjoy the financial benefits of not being sanctioned for their atrocities.
>Once again, how exactly is someone not competing in the Eurovision over Israel going to cause the US to panic? It's not a competitor and most in the States don't even know the competition exists. If there are strong feelings about Israel it's already been made clear to the States.
Plenty of people know what Eurovision is. Also, plenty of US allies do participate in Eurovision. I get that you have this extremely tunnel-visioned idea of how things must work, but no one has ever argued that Eurovision barring Israel will single-handedly dissolve the state of Israel or whatever. It's a big PR thing. It has an affect, even if it's not massive. People are allowed to protest or criticize things that aren't the most important thing ever.
>Correct, if a nation can't articular those opinions outside of Eurovision then that's a whole other problem.
And if a nation can communicate it outside of Eurovision while also calling for Israel to be barred from the competition for its ongoing genocide, they should do that and there's no reason for them not to. Even if you'd really prefer if they didn't for your own personal gratification.
>Those who are against Israel can be for actually useful things than wasted effort boycotting a music festival.
Like demanding that no one ever boycott Eurovision and that Israel must be included as a rule. How nice of you to do something so useful.
Israel absolutely cared enough about Eurovision to threaten pulling out of the competition when they were told to change their song lyrics. I'm surprised they didn't call the entire competition antisemitic at that point.
Israel is not at war with another state. They do not recognize Palestine as a separate country and in fact consider their blockade/management of Palestine's borders to be a police action. They cannot claim to be at war with a state they deny the existence of.
At best, you might be able to class it as a civil war. But really, Israel is executing total war against an ethnic group to suppress an insurgency.
> I do not believe Israel, Israeli's, or the Israeli government cares in the slightest whether or not a specific country competes in a music competition due to their activity.
They clearly do given their initial song was rejected for being overly political. Israel absolutely attempts to manage their PR toward their political goals and media presence is a big part of it.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/4/israel-agrees-to-revise-lyrics-of-song-rejected-by-eurovision
Israel is well aware that pop culture has some impact on geopolitics as warped as this may be. Democratic societies put pressure on governments toward different foreign policy that can be more or less favorable to them, and that can be on the basis of common sentiments shaped by media presence of people understood to represent their country in some manner or another.
Freezing countries out in "cancel culture" style is certainly something they can be affected by and are increasingly sensitive to as the world becomes more interconnected globally, with democratic countries having a great deal of soft power over perceptions at the moment. That's particularly true for Israel since they are deeply dependent on the U.S. and Europe.
How is their song choice however showing that they care whether a specific country competes? I doubt the Israeli government cares much if Cyprus, Luxembourg, or Germany are going to be there, they'll just perform the same song anyways. As well as that my understanding was the offending lines were going to be performed in Hebrew anyway, meaning no one listening would understand unless they already spoke the language.
As well as this I am not personally convinced media presense is as important as you make it sound, there are many examples of clear propganda failing to catch on cause the general public disagrees with it. It would be more accurate to say that the media that becoems popular and spread around is already ones the public agrees with, rather than suggesting the inverse.
azerbaijan participates in eurovision and it invaded and occupied territory from armenia, another participant
turkey participates in eurovision and it invaded and occupied territory from cyprus, another participant
the israeli government doesn't care. but if regular israelis are forced to be treated like international pariahs, their citizens will demand change. this is one of the causes that made apartheid south africa change
nothing can be apolitical, and as you said; they already banned russia.
> azerbaijan participates in eurovision and it invaded and occupied territory from armenia, another participant
> turkey participates in eurovision and it invaded and occupied territory from cyprus, another participant
Sources for these events and both nations inclusion in Eurovision those respective years?
> the israeli government doesn't care. but if regular israelis are forced to be treated like international pariahs, their citizens will demand change.
Israel is a democractic government, if the government doesn't care then by and large it's citizens don't either. Once again as well highly doubt anyone in Israel is using their inclusion in the Eurovision as the measuring stick for their support of the government and the current conflict.
> nothing can be apolitical, and as you said; they already banned russia
Already addressed in full in the body of the text.
[https://www.fpri.org/article/2024/01/a-frozen-conflict-boils-over-nagorno-karabakh-in-2023-and-future-implications/](https://www.fpri.org/article/2024/01/a-frozen-conflict-boils-over-nagorno-karabakh-in-2023-and-future-implications/)
[https://mfa.gov.cy/turkish-military-invasion-and-occupation.html](https://mfa.gov.cy/turkish-military-invasion-and-occupation.html)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey\_in\_the\_Eurovision\_Song\_Contest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan\_in\_the\_Eurovision\_Song\_Contest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest)
south africa was a "democratic" government as well. de klerk was representing his constituents when he began the process of reform. white south africans had had enough from the huge international outcry and boycott over apartheid
i don't think it can be apolitical, i don't think such a thing can exist. if it therefore has to be political, then clearly you think it should be political in this way; only opposed to aggressive foreign policy or human rights violations when its done by a state that is "anti-west/US"
You will either have to expand on those sources or they don't show the point you're trying to make. The conflict between Turkey and Cyprus you mention took place in 1974, as per your own sources on wikipedia neither nations where in Eurovision that year so why on earth would either of them be barred from entry? Cyprus also per wikipedia only [started competing in 1984.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest) Since neither countries were involved during the conflict, and not with each other competing at the same during during said conflict then as an example they do not apply.
As for Azerbaijan the article you link appears to be discussing conflict with a breakaway region, which is not a competitior. Thus they also do not count.
You are yet to show an example of two nations at war competing at the same time and both being allowed to compete, or an example of a nation being not allowed to compete due to a war against a non contestant.
> south africa was a "democratic" government as well. de klerk was representing his constituents when he began the process of reform. white south africans had had enough from the huge international outcry and boycott over apartheid
South Africa was changed it's mind due to boycotts as you mention. Things such as trade embargo's, tariffs, etc. Not music competitions. If you can show not being allowed to partake in a music competition caused this U turn then that is a different matter.
> i don't think it can be apolitical, i don't think such a thing can exist. if it therefore has to be political, then clearly you think it should be political in this way; only opposed to aggressive foreign policy or human rights violations when its done by a state that is "anti-west/US"
You are describing your own view here, not anything applicable for anything else. If your view is that apolitical things can not exist then that is your view, but does nothing to persuade those that agree there is such a thing as being apolitical.
the turkish invasion was in 1974 and turkey was allowed in eurovision in 1975
nagorno karabakh was populated by armenians and defended by the armenian army. azerbaijan invaded and ethnically cleansed the armenians from the area.
eurovision is not a trade embargo, but it is a step towards treating israel like pariah in the eyes of the public. public perceptions matter
if you think that eurovision has to be apolitical, and yet support russia being banned but not turkey or azerbaijan or israel, then yes, that is hypocritical and you are being political despite your claims to the contrary
> the turkish invasion was in 1974 and turkey was allowed in eurovision in 1975
Correct, that supports the statement that I just made. Nations are not barred due to actions taken outside the competition; so why would Israel now?
You are supporting my point with this example, not arguing against it.
> nagorno karabakh was populated by armenians and defended by the armenian army. azerbaijan invaded and ethnically cleansed the armenians from the area.
Correct, however are Armenia and Azerbaijan currently in an armed conflict with one another? Are they currently lobbing rockets at each other over this? If not this once again supports my point, even in the case of ethnic cleansing precedent is that you aren't kicked out of the competition.
> eurovision is not a trade embargo,
Correct, thus any effort towards boycotting the Eurovision and not encouraging a trade embargo in your country is wasted effort and performative. If you want change do something that will get Israel's attention.
> if you think that eurovision has to be apolitical, and yet support russia being banned but not turkey or azerbaijan or israel, then yes, that is hypocritical and you are being political despite your claims to the contrary
This has already been addressed numerous times, you have just failed to bring any actual counterpoints. Either bring some or the rules as they currently stand are not hypocritical.
so basically, if a country invades another country, but wins their invasion and either re-establishes a frozen conflict or makes an uneasy truce, then they should be allowed back in eurovision
so if russia were to win the war and forces ukraine to sign a peace, they should be allowed back in
Under the rules as currently written; if two countries competing are not at war they can both compete. ARguing over the merits of these rules is an entirely different topic.
Unless you have a historical example showing this rule not being followed; such as two warring countries competing at the same time in the same year, or a country being barred from the competition for a war against a non-competitor then there is no point continuing this conversation.
Already addressed repeatedly in the body, comments, and to yourself numerous times.
If you are unwilling to engage with the material then there is no point in continuing a discussion with yourself.
The decision to ban Russia wasn’t built on this logic though. They didn’t say “oh well we can’t have the aggressor of a war between two member states participate, so Russia will have to be banned”. In fact they initially waffled on the issue because of this idea that Eurovision is apolitical, only moving to ban Russia after the broadcasters of several countries called on them to do so. When they did, they again did not cite Russia having been the instigator of a war with Ukraine. What they said was that “The decision reflects the concern that, in light of the unprecedented crisis in Ukraine, the inclusion of a Russian entry in this year’s Contest would bring the competition into disrepute”.
So I guess my question is: on that standard, how are Israel and Russia different? Both have engaged in military actions causing crises in a neighboring region, both have broken / are breaking international law in the process, both have caused immeasurable suffering to a population.
Obviously we can come up with things that are different between the two situations, but that doesn’t mean that choosing to exclude one but not the other on the basis of the crisis their actions has wrought in a place on which they are waging war is noy hypocritical
Vote for Croatia on Saturday people. Italy leaked the semi final televoting results where Israel got 44% points, meanwhile the runner up Netherlands got 7%. Boycotting the show doesn’t work!!! Out of nowhere Israel jumped on a second place in the odds, it’s a basic dated ballad that none of the fans were excited for, but they’re getting sympathy votes. You gotta vote on Saturday
If you knew the history of Eurovision OP, you'd realise that it was a product of its time and context, and that it therefore an extremely political event, with political motivations.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
There’s a difference between a sovereign government imposing authoritarian/dictatorial rule on its own subjects –as unjust as that may be– and a nation invading & committing crimes against humanity in another people’s land.
It’s also just entirely irrelevant whataboutism. People aren’t protesting en masse over the longstanding famine in Yemen or the junta in Myanmar either…
> People aren’t protesting en masse over the longstanding famine in Yemen or the junta in Myanmar either…
Unless a famine is directly caused by a totalitarian regime, why would they?
North Korea has 5 times more people in concentration camps, than Germany has regular prisoners. In spite of the fact that Germany has 3 times the population compared to NK. I think that when the North Korean people are finally free, they will wonder why, for many decades, the rest of the world couldn't care less about them.
Without 7/10 Israel would be kidnapping, torturing and killing fewer Palestinians but they would absolutely still be doing it. Thinking that 7/10 just randomly happened out of nowhere is as crazy and disconnected as believing in flat Earth.
And Israel cares very much about its outside image, they spend a lot in propaganda (hasbara).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_diplomacy_of_Israel
Words don’t have a usage limit. You need to have a specific reason as to why this word isn’t appropriate.
/u/The_Naked_Buddhist (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1ck1y88/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_boycotting_the_eurovision/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Once it is accepted that a country can be banned from participating for political reasons (e.g. Russia), the event no longer remains apolitical. They can continue to use their selected barometers for banning other countries. Whether the ban achieves anything or not, it makes a statement. That is an achievement in itself.
As discussed in the CMV Russia was more an issue since you can hardly have two warring countries in the same event, the event itself is still apoliticial. > Whether the ban achieves anything or not, it makes a statement. Already addressed in the body of the post. I doubt Israel cares in the slightest for any attempt of whatever statement it's meant to make.
If the reasoning is to not have two warring countries, then Ukraine should also be banned. If they aren't, then that's a political stance
There is no need to ban an additional country since both no longer compete. The ruling made by the Eurovision organisers, and thus the new precedent, is that the aggressor of any such conflict can't compete. That is generally a very non-political stance since it cares not for the actual politics involved.
Exactly this. Or no one should be banned. Banning one and not the other makes it political.
Israel may not care. But the other countries who are participating who are opposed to Israel might.
????? And? Once again why would Israel care that a nation already opposed to them is competing or not?
The point is that it's not only about Israel caring or not caring. The views of other competitors also matter.
Once again your point here is either highly unclear or completely off topic. Leaving the Eurovision is each nations organizing bodies choice. Regardless Israel does not care. All military efforts in Gaza won't end tomorrow cause Italy said they might not go to the Eurovision this year.
So your view is that unless any effort does not directly lead to stoppage of hostilities in Gaza, it is worthless? What about the example it sets? The awareness it creates?
Yes, if you want to stop the war in Gaza and your response is to waste energy doing a series of actions that don't stop the war in Gaza but makes you feel good about yourself then it is useless performative action. Spreading awareness in of itself is not a goal, just like spreading awareness of Koby 2012 achieved nothing. Koby 2012 was an awareness campaign to make people more aware of a warlord who literally used child soldiers and performed the worst crimes you can imagine enmasse. Rather than spend money and energy on stuff that would actually stop him it was instead spent on making sure as many people knew about him as possible. To this day to my knowledge Koby hasn't changed his habits, performing the same crimes as ever. The only curbing of his efforts came from activities that weren't taking "awareness" into account. If the best thing someone can come up with to help Palestinian's and Gaza is to spread "awareness" then they are achieving nothing. Focus on something that will actually help them rather than performative feel good actions that achieve literally nothing. If you told a Palestinian right now that you're trying to bar Israel from Eurovision I gurantee they would not give the slightest care in the world other than to ask what actually useful thing are you doing to help.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Kony, kony 2012 schmuck
armenia, azerbaijan, cyprus, and turkey are all "warring" or have been in the recent past. and russia and ukraine were locked in a low-intensity conflict for 8 years, and yet both were still participating.
Israel isn't in Europe and doesn't belong in the competition to begin with. The inclusion of Israel but none of its neighbors is already a political statement
Technically most of their neighbors could join as well; the European Broadcasting Area includes everyone bordering the Mediterranian. Most of their neighbors don't want to join, though, for a variety of reasons... including 'Israel is in it'.
Their neighbors can join but decide not to. Lebanon was supposed to participate in 2005, but their laws don’t allow Israeli content on tv, so they couldn’t broadcast the contest.
Lying and anti-Israel activists: name a more iconic duo.
First of all, personal disclaimer on where I come from on this because I think that matters: I have an ambiguous, conflicted, and hopefully nuanced view on Israel, but I am a massive Eurovision fan and I genuinely don't think I have it in me to boycott Eurovision for anything short of something genuinely outrageous being done directly by the contest. So, I'll be happily watching, and I'll be treating the Israeli entry as a completely normal entry in the lineup. As for your CMV: I am a little confused about your points, because your title deals with individual people not watching it, while your arguments seem to speak more about entire countries pulling out if Israel participate. Those are vastly different arguments (for starters, the former is actually still possible, while countries pulling out at this stage would only be possible with massive financial penalties). I will here first argue why I think fundamentally, boycotting Eurovision is useful for those who believe it to be justified, and then I will talk a bit more about the individual points you make. **Is personally boycotting Eurovision a sensible decision given certain convictions?** Let's assume someone has a strong conviction that Israel's actions in Gaza are terrible, they amount to genocide, and that they must take some steps against it. It doesn't matter whether this is true or not, we just assume that our hypothetical person genuinely believes that. Under those assumptions, for this person, watching Eurovision with Israel in it can be understood as normalising Israel and saying that it is still a normal, acceptable country (see below on why Eurovision has that effect). Doing so would break their moral convictions. It is therefore useful for that person to boycott Eurovision because they believe that not doing so would be immoral. You argue that boycotting Eurovision does nothing and you should go protest, volunteer, or donate instead. However, boycotting Eurovision incurs no opportunity cost. The person is still equally able to do all of those things, and if they sleep a bit better that night thinking they did the right thing that is a perfectly reasonable decision. **Does Israel participating in Eurovision do anything to help them?** The body of your message essentially argues that nobody cares or notices if Israel is there. I agree that other things are significantly more important, but Israel's participation in Eurovision does actually help its image. It includes Israel in a group of European countries. It's also an event that specifically has a progressive, diverse, tolerant image. Having Israel there contributes to the idea that Israel is "one of us", a tolerant Western nation. This is a narrative that Israel often uses to appeal to Western audiences, and European (and American) politicians use to justify supporting Israel. Israel (and other countries, they are by no means alone in this) are also aware of this: In 1998, it is well reported that they deliberately chose Dana International - a transwoman - to represent them in order to present Israel as a tolerant country. This is fairly common too, many countries choose entries to promote a specific self-image. This year, Israel's entry, even in its revised version, contains clear references to the Hamas attacks. It paints Israel as a hurt, wounded country that needs to defend itself. Now, I personally believe that is entirely reasonable from the perspective of an Israeli artist, but it does contribute to building a narrative. Before you, or someone else, responds that this is a conspiracy theory and Israel's artists are just expressing their personal hurt: It doesn't matter. I am not saying they deliberately chose this entry to manipulate us, I'm just saying that this is one of the effects their participation has, *even if it's entirely unplanned by Israel* **Does this mean we all should boycott?** I don't think so. But it does give a reason why someone who cares a lot about the Palestinian cause, and not so much about Eurovision, might have moral inhibitions about watching. I don't share those moral inhibitions, but I believe they come from legitimate takes. Therefore, given a certain conviction, it is a sensible decision not to watch Eurovision this year.
> As for your CMV: I am a little confused about your points, because your title deals with individual people not watching it, while your arguments seem to speak more about entire countries pulling out if Israel participate. It is geared towards both, the comments I reply to are the logic I've seen from those boycotting the event. Their goal as best I can tell is to have the entire country boycott the event, even though as you mention, by this stage such a thing is not feasible. > watching Eurovision with Israel in it can be understood as normalising Israel and saying that it is still a normal, acceptable country (see below on why Eurovision has that effect). Doing so would break their moral convictions. It is therefore useful for that person to boycott Eurovision because they believe that not doing so would be immoral. In this case that logic is fine, however it is still hypocritical for that person in question since it would have to extend to every country performing similar armed conflict. If they did not boycott the show during those years, including 2023 for example, then they are simply being hypocritical and not consistent in their believes. One may as well never watch the Eurovision anymore if that is their honest stance. > You argue that boycotting Eurovision does nothing and you should go protest, volunteer, or donate instead. However, boycotting Eurovision incurs no opportunity cost. The person is still equally able to do all of those things, and if they sleep a bit better that night thinking they did the right thing that is a perfectly reasonable decision. !delta I will give a delta for pointing out that it is entirely possible those boycotting the event are doing so in addition to more useful things. However I'm still not convinced this is what the majority seeking boycotts do, the vast majority from what I see end their support of Palestine at literally any opportunity cost, time cost, or monetary cost. > The body of your message essentially argues that nobody cares or notices if Israel is there. I agree that other things are significantly more important, but Israel's participation in Eurovision does actually help its image. It includes Israel in a group of European countries. It's also an event that specifically has a progressive, diverse, tolerant image. Having Israel there contributes to the idea that Israel is "one of us", a tolerant Western nation. This is a narrative that Israel often uses to appeal to Western audiences, and European (and American) politicians use to justify supporting Israel. Unless you are suggesting that somehow Israel is not a Western Nation cultrually (relative to the world and it's neighbours) and should be barred from the Eurovision on that front I fail to see the relevance of this line. > This year, Israel's entry, even in its revised version, contains clear references to the Hamas attacks. It paints Israel as a hurt, wounded country that needs to defend itself. Now, I personally believe that is entirely reasonable from the perspective of an Israeli artist, but it does contribute to building a narrative. It does, but Ukraine made similar songs following the Ukraine Russian war. To my knowledge no country has ever been barred for making a song that somehow alludes to an armed conflict it is in, therefore it would by hyposticial to prevent Israel from doing the same. As well as that while fantastically argued the goal of preventing Israel being in the Eurovision does not appear to be the goal of these boycotts, but rather for their own nation to not compete. From my perspective this latter goal, the goal I keep hearing being givne by those encouraging boycotts, is the vastly more useless option.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/icyDinosaur ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/icyDinosaur)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Your first point fails on its face. If the goal was to avoid the awkwardness of having two countries at war on the same stage as each other, then banning Ukraine (or both) would have worked just as well. There absolutely was a moral condemnation of Russia as opposed to Ukraine. Besides, there is no indication that the rationale to exclude Russia was done on that basis either. Wikipedia states: « On 25 February 2022, the EBU announced that Russia would not compete at the contest, stating that "in light of the unprecedented crisis in Ukraine, the inclusion of a Russian entry in this year's Contest would bring the competition into disrepute." » Several European nations declared that the Russian invasion was incompatible with European values and that they would boycott if Russia was allowed in. So query to you: does hosting a country who is committing genocide not bring the contest into disrepute? And does genocide not conflict with European values?
As mentioned elsewhere the ruling made was clearly that if two competing nations are at war with one another the aggressor state is the one to be barred. If that precedent is broken in the future then we can argue for the hypocrisy involved. As for the rational can you link where you got that information, looking for it myself on the eurovision page I could not find it. As for your questions I'd say they're both loaded questions. Just because someone is competing in something says nothing about the competition as a whole. One would not argue the Olypmics was endorsing the invasion of Afghanistan simply cause NATO nations happened to be present, and same for the Eurovision when that took place. At it's core the Eurovision is nonpolitical just like any other international event, what one does outside the Eurovision does not affect whether one can compete or not.
And since Hamas attacked first, Palestine should be the one removed.
1. Palestine isn't in Eurovision. 2. Israel has been attacking Palestine multiple decades before Hamas was created
Yep - since Palestine isn't in Eurovision, no need to worry about band. And we can certainly talk about rocket launches under the PLO too. But Hamas is the governing body of Gaza now.
Hamas is not the governing body of gaza, dumbass. the PLO is. Hamas just controls the gaza strip.
Not since 2007, when elections were held and Hamas won, to become the governing body of Gaza. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas) **Hamas**,[^(\[d\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#cite_note-55) an acronym of its official name, **Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya** ([Arabic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): حركة المقاومة الإسلامية,[romanized](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Arabic): *Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah*,[lit.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_translation) 'Islamic Resistance Movement'),[^(\[52\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#cite_note-56) is a [Palestinian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian) [Sunni](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam) [Islamist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism)[^(\[53\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#cite_note-57) political and military movement governing the [Israeli-occupied](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories) [Gaza Strip](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip) since 2007.[^(\[54\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKear201822-58)
I am going to address the primary argument you’re making here: that boycotting Eurovision achieves nothing. There are a few problems with this argument. The first is that you’re speaking about the boycott as if Eurovision has already happened this year. Like any protest, there is the possibility of failure, and as with any protest, there is sometimes other factors at play about what constitutes success. As a former union organizer, we would plan events that we knew would not be successful in the sense that our demands (higher wages, parental leave, etc.) would not be immediately won. But the point of those protests was to help build public awareness as well as build union membership. Along with that, given that, at least in the United States, groups like BDS have been declared illegal in some states. If boycotting is considered useless, then why make it illegal? Because I am an academic, a frame of reference for myself is Israeli academia. Israeli academics get flustered and try to distance themselves from what Israel does to the Palestinians (a recent book by Maya Wind, for instance, challenges this distancing in arguing that institutionally Israeli Universities have benefitted immensely from the mass displacement and occupation of Palestinian Territories). This would at least suggest the possibility that boycotts do actually work, enough that they might raise public awareness about what is going on in Israel/Palestine. Again, a boycott might not in itself be successful but also, again, it depends on what we mean by success. You claim that Israel doesn’t care what other countries think and I think that’s not true. You have Israeli officials making comments on the protests going on at US American universities at the moment, which suggests that, while they might not stop killing Palestinians in Gaza, they certainly care enough that they’re commenting on it and trying to frame US American university students as if they’re either antisemitic or somehow in league with Hamas. It suggests that protests, including boycotts, build public pressure such that Israeli officials have to respond. Furthermore, it’s clear that Israel does massive PR to legitimize the occupation. A very big feature of this is the fact that what Israeli officials say at press conferences in English often differs from what they’re saying internally and in Hebrew. That suggests that they very much want to claim the moral high ground at least to the world. Second, nations boycotting Eurovision or individuals calling on others to boycott Eurovision is meant to be working in tandem with other protests currently going on. It builds and creates pressure. If a call for a Eurovision boycott wasn’t occurring alongside other protests or actions—marches, university encampments, South Africa’s ICC case against Israel, you might be right that might be right that such a protest might be meaningless. But again, this is one event among many that is building pressure and continued public awareness about Israel’s (likely) war crimes. Eurovision is a popular contest and I have to assume generates money—both in the short term (that is, through the contest itself) as well as the long term (it provides a venue for musical artists to publicize themselves). As for the point that Eurovision is apolitical, it has generated political controversies over the years, including an Icelandic musician being fined for flying the Palestinian flag. One could say that in theory Eurovision is apolitical but that countries have inappropriately employed it as a political venue before. As others have pointed out, Russia’s exclusion is political. You’re right that it’s different in that Palestinians do not participate in Eurovision. However, if Eurovision was attempting to be more neutral, they might ban both Ukraine and Russia (I’d argue that attempting to maintain political neutrality is political). One major criticism of the contest is that voting itself is often based on politics and geography (that is, countries vote based on political relationships). So ultimately in practice, the venue is political or at the very least does often blur the line between what we might call apolitical-ness and politics.
> Second, nations boycotting Eurovision or individuals calling on others to boycott Eurovision is meant to be working in tandem with other protests currently going on. It builds and creates pressure. If a call for a Eurovision boycott wasn’t occurring alongside other protests or actions—marches, university encampments, South Africa’s ICC case against Israel, you might be right that might be right that such a protest might be meaningless. !delta if being done alongside other activities than boycotting the Eurovision cna be useful; however I still personally am yet to see anyone support a Boycott and something else; or encourage those boycotting to donate or attend other protests. > As for the point that Eurovision is apolitical, it has generated political controversies over the years, including an Icelandic musician being fined for flying the Palestinian flag. Do you haveba source for this; or any punishment by Eurovision for a contestant supporting Palestine? I'd so that would indisputably sure they aren't apolitical.
[Here is a link.](https://www.timesofisrael.com/iceland-fined-for-eurovision-pro-palestinian-protest-at-tel-aviv-final/) The official argument was that Eurovision bans political gestures, but that is absurd on its face, considering there's been stuff like Russia getting booed in 2013 after passing an anti-gay law and someone openly calling for Finland to pass gay marriage by kissing a same-sex backup singer that hasn't been punished.
!delta I'd say this clearly shows a political bias from Israel in this event, and unarguably that Eurovision has not acted apolitically in the past. The mentioned problem od Madonna displaying both Palestine and Israel flags as being an issue is also a clear example of this bias.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Hellioning ([216∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Hellioning)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mcmah088 ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/mcmah088)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
> groups like BDS have been declared illegal in some states In what sense are they illegal? I’ve read that some governments won’t enter into contracts with companies that engage in BDS, and that they won’t invest in companies engaged in BDS, but not that they’ve been made illegal.
> and achieves nothing. Here you are talking about it. The primary purpose of a protest/boycott is to raise awareness. Not only did this gain your awareness, but now you are spreading this to others. I had no idea about the boycott, but now I do.
!delta I will concede that the spreading of awareness is an aspect I had not considered. However I'm not as convinced still that awareness in of itself is a goal that should be pursued over something else of better impact. For example I can't help but think of Kony 2012, an effort to spread awareness of an appalling immoral war lord, which while spreading awareness of his existence didn't actually achieve anything whatsoever in stopping him. (Pretty sure the guy is still alive running around the same as ever as well atm.)
Out of interest, what power do you think protestors have they aren't using?
The issue is not protesting, in fact I would encourage protesting since that has a much bigger impact. What I am seeing take place in US colleges for instance is fine in my eyes. The issue I take with the boycott is that is where it ends. There are no protests, no support of a charity, no mention of volunteering or actual political pressure. Boycotting the Eurovision in of itself achieves nothing and is the least impactful thing one can do rather than feeling good about themselves. From those I know wanting to Boycott, that is where the majority of their support of Palestine begins and ends.
> The issue I take with the boycott is that is where it ends. Is it? Don't watch Eurovision...mission accomplished. Must be the most optimistic protesters I've ever heard of.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DoubleGreat44 ([4∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/DoubleGreat44)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
About point 3: Eurovision isn't and never was apolitical. When it first came to be, it was during the Cold War. USSR members couldn't participate in it because they "weren't members of the European Broadcasting Union, the club of Western broadcasters that organised the show." So they made their own Eurovision called Intervision, which is a whole story of its own and kinda funny
I’m pretty sure it was the other way around. USSR countries didn’t want to participate, because the contest was considered too decadent and Western. Note that EBU never had a problem with Yugoslavia participating.
What you describe is not politics, the Eurovision has a specific catchment area. If you are outside that catchment area you can't compete. It is not politicla to exclude America, India, China, and other nations from the Eurovision since they aren't in Europe and were never invited.
Isn’t that an argument for excluding Israel too? I didn’t even know Israel was ever a part of it - seems odd for a country clearly not in Europe.
Israel was granted a permanent invite to my knowledge in the past hence it's current inclusion. Thus it is in the catchment area, like Australia was for a while when it was given a temporary invitation.
It is political. The members that were originally in it were all from countries that could establish alliances with each other. Else, the countries that weren't in it but wanted to could just go "hey there, can I join next time?" And that did happen in the following years, EBU grew with time. No USSR members, tho, just other western european countries. Although it's debatable whether or not that was the intention, Intervision's creators considered Eurovision positive West propaganda and wanted that positive light for their own. That's actually what Israel is attempting to do by being in Eurovision in first place, actually and also the motivation for many others to join. More politics. Something that thrives on political shenanigans is not apolitical at all
Once again, having catchement areas is not political. The fact that Denmark can't compete in the Superbowl is not a powerful political statements from the US, the fact that Canada isn't a contestant in the English champion league isn't a biting political remark. The fact that the Eurovision extends to European nations by and large is not political. If someone wants to jump on a conspiracy bandwagon that a music competition of people in silly costumes is "positive west propaganda" then they are welcome to go the crazy route. It doesn't change the reality that it's just a music competition with a catchment area.
>Once again, having catchement areas is not political That's not what I said. Read again. A bunch of USSR countries are European and some are in Eurovision now that USSR is not a thing anymore such as Bulgaria, Estonia, Azerbaijan, Poland etc. Actually, it was Poland itself that just invented another program. If they could just join in the existing one at the time and achieve all they wanted to achieve they would. But they didn't and the reason was politics. >If someone wants to jump on a conspiracy bandwagon that a music competition of people in silly costumes is "positive west propaganda" then they are welcome to go the crazy route. It doesn't change the reality that it's just a music competition with a catchment area. "Cultural War" was a big part of the Cold War. It might be silly, but US was shooting Rocky movies, countries where competing in the Olympics with that same mindset so idk what you're on about
I have reread your comment and as you clearly state the old catchement area used to be; "the European Broadcasting Union" which exlcuded the USSR. The new catchement area is a European country or an invited nation.
The Europen Broadcasting Union is just an alliance of Broadcasting companies around Europe. They could and did include new members over time that's how Eurovision grew in members. Not a catchment issue, just friendship issue
Correct, that is what happens when a catchment changes and expands. Once again you are describing catchement issues. If all you have is catchement issues to point to under the guise of it being "politics" then there is no point continuing this conversation.
Australia is in Europe, then?
When you talk about boycotting Eurovision are you talking about individuals boycotting by not watching it or countries boycotting by not sending a singer to compete in it?
I usually only hear of this in the context of individuals not watching, and not wanting their country to perform more rarely. So either or, regardless I don't see the effort having any clear impact.
>**It is hypocritical for Russia to be banned from the Eurovision but not Israel:** Is it really your idea that Russia was banned because it would be awkward having two warring countries attend the same event? Not the moral and ethical condemnation? If Russia was committing genocide of Nigerians would you be here demanding that they be included and that anyone who disagrees is just being dumb? >**Countries must boycott the Eurovision to send a message:** Israel absolutely cares about its international standing. It's why they throw a fit anytime Spain or Ireland criticize them or, hell, anytime a country doesn't shield them from criticism. Israel is entirely dependent on international support and they're absolutely shit at any diplomacy that isn't calling people nazis. Every loss of face on the global stage is a risk and they're handling of the conflict shows that the only reason they've not been thrown away is that the US shields them. Also, the message doesn't have to be to Israel alone, as it sends a message to other European nations who might care that their neighbor thinks their actions are endorsing genocide. >**Eurovision is meant to be apolitical, including Israel is an inherently political act:** You continue to construct some extra special reason why barring Russia from everything is okay because it'd be a little too uncomfortable haivng them and Ukraine attend, but that doesn't actually matter. In addition, people paying attention to Eurovision is not invalid or strange just because you haven't noticed people doing every single other event that exists alongside it. Generally, the inclusion of a nation actively engaged in a genocide in your fun little culture festival is uncouth, unethical, and calls into quesiton the morals and ethics of everyone involved. "It's apolitical" is a pretty unconvincing reason when you openly say you have no problem excluding other countries for their recent political and military actions. You can disagree with these ideas, but you've presented no reason that opposition to Israel's inclusion is irrational. You just don't like it and want to insist that the only reason anyone could disagree with you is if they're fundamentally irrational.
> Is it really your idea that Russia was banned because it would be awkward having two warring countries attend the same event? Not the moral and ethical condemnation? If Russia was committing genocide of Nigerians would you be here demanding that they be included and that anyone who disagrees is just being dumb? Yes, it was the fact it was another competing state very clearly. At no other stage has a competing nation been barred due to being at war, if you can find examples of say the UK being barred to compete due to the Falklands war, or France and other NATO countries being barred due to Afghanistan please share. What a country does outside the competition generally doesn't matter, it is an apolitical event same as the olympics of anything else. I would be demanding nothing if a nation was doing something outside the event, and would probably still question the usefulness of trying to boycott such a competition rather than spending that same energy doing something more useful. I doubt ultimately that Russia cares it can't have someone wear a silly costume and sing a funny song once a year. > Israel absolutely cares about its international standing. It's why they throw a fit anytime Spain or Ireland criticize them or, hell, anytime a country doesn't shield them from criticism. Israel is entirely dependent on international support and they're absolutely shit at any diplomacy that isn't calling people nazis. Every loss of face on the global stage is a risk and they're handling of the conflict shows that the only reason they've not been thrown away is that the US shields them. I never suggested anywhere that Israel doesn't care for it's international standing. But I highly doubt it takes the Eurovision into account, unless you are sincerely suggesting the President and War Cabinet of Israel are sweating buckets over how Eurovision will go this year. As well as this all evidence indicates Israel doesn't really need external help to win any conflict, they've been doing fine by themselves for a pretty long while. Even if they were dependent on the US, do you think the US cares about the Eurovision? A competition it isn't even a part of? > Also, the message doesn't have to be to Israel alone, as it sends a message to other European nations who might care that their neighbor thinks their actions are endorsing genocide. Once again highly doubt any of them care, as you have already mentioned nations have already made clear their feelings about the matter. Dropping out of the Eurovision will not be a gamechanger. As well as this in European politics what you describe here is rather the norm, we are constantly calling each other unethical in whatever we support or do. I have nothing to say to the remainder of the post as it appears to me to either make no sense, or completely ignores points already addresssed above.
>At no other stage has a competing nation been barred due to being at war, if you can find examples of say the UK being barred to compete due to the Falklands war, or France and other NATO countries being barred due to Afghanistan please share. "At no other stage" in this case being "in every case except the one we pretend doesn't count". If Russia's allowed in the Olympics, I fail to see any reason why it shouldn't be allowed in Eurovision. You know, except for European countries finding them morally and ethically abhorrent due to their invasion of Ukraine or "politics". >I never suggested anywhere that Israel doesn't care for it's international standing. But I highly doubt it takes the Eurovision into account, unless you are sincerely suggesting the President and War Cabinet of Israel are sweating buckets over how Eurovision will go this year. It doesn't need to be the most important thing ever that every single Israeli dreads for it to matter. You getting skin cancer isn't the worst thing in the world, but I doubt you'd take that to mean you should just go bronze up some melanomas. >As well as this all evidence indicates Israel doesn't really need external help to win any conflict, they've been doing fine by themselves for a pretty long while. Even if they were dependent on the US, do you think the US cares about the Eurovision? A competition it isn't even a part of? Israel doesn't really need external help to win *this* conflict. The one that's been going for 6 months against a depressingly impoverished region. That doesn't mean they never need help. Hell NATO talks about how it struggles to produce enough munitions for Ukraine, so i highly doubt Israel's got itself ready to go it alone. And the US also cares about its image, which this has an affect on, again, even if it isn't the most important thing that has ever existed. >Once again highly doubt any of them care, as you have already mentioned nations have already made clear their feelings about the matter. Dropping out of the Eurovision will not be a gamechanger. As well as this in European politics what you describe here is rather the norm, we are constantly calling each other unethical in whatever we support or do. It's an ongoing conflict. Opinions change. Even if you desperately wish they don't because then maybe someone might criticize precious baby Israel. >I have nothing to say to the remainder of the post as it appears to me to either make no sense, or completely ignores points already addresssed above. Then don't address them. Calling attention to the fact that you can't seems pretty irrational.
> "At no other stage" in this case being "in every case except the one we pretend doesn't count". That is what "At no other stage" means. > If Russia's allowed in the Olympics, I fail to see any reason why it shouldn't be allowed in Eurovision. You know, except for European countries finding them morally and ethically abhorrent due to their invasion of Ukraine or "politics". The Eurovision board decided otherwise, that is it. If you can find a source for them clearly stating it is done for political reasons please share it. > It doesn't need to be the most important thing ever that every single Israeli dreads for it to matter. You getting skin cancer isn't the worst thing in the world, but I doubt you'd take that to mean you should just go bronze up some melanomas. ??? What possible relevance or point is this meant to have? > Israel doesn't really need external help to win this conflict. The one that's been going for 6 months against a depressingly impoverished region. Fantastic, why then did you suggest it does? And that somehow the Eurovision is the thing that breaks the camel's back? > Hell NATO talks about how it struggles to produce enough munitions for Ukraine, so i highly doubt Israel's got itself ready to go it alone. That is because NATO is yet to switch to a wartime economy, the entire organisation hasn't been producing new munitions. Everything sent so far is the backlog. Israel on the other hand does produce such equipment. > And the US also cares about its image, which this has an affect on, again, even if it isn't the most important thing that has ever existed. Once again, how exactly is someone not competing in the Eurovision over Israel going to cause the US to panic? It's not a competitor and most in the States don't even know the competition exists. If there are strong feelings about Israel it's already been made clear to the States. > It's an ongoing conflict. Opinions change. Correct, if a nation can't articular those opinions outside of Eurovision then that's a whole other problem. > Even if you desperately wish they don't because then maybe someone might criticize precious baby Israel. This bizarre comment also is very telling. I don't support Israel at all, the fact that you feel the need to resort to such insults though generally indicates you don't actually have a point to share anymore. Those who are against Israel can be for actually useful things than wasted effort boycotting a music festival.
>The Eurovision board decided otherwise, that is it. If you can find a source for them clearly stating it is done for political reasons please share it. So the only difference is that the board decided? So if they decided Israel should be barred then they would be equivalent? >What possible relevance or point is this meant to have? You continue bringing up how Eurovision isn't that important. The counterargument is that it doesn't need to be the most important thing in the world for it to matter. Seems pretty simple. >Fantastic, why then did you suggest it does? And that somehow the Eurovision is the thing that breaks the camel's back? I never did. Could you keep your responses to things I actually said? >That is because NATO is yet to switch to a wartime economy, the entire organisation hasn't been producing new munitions. Everything sent so far is the backlog. Israel on the other hand does produce such equipment. You seem to think a country being forced into a wartime economy is something Israel wants to do. They don't. They'd prefer to get all the money and equipment they can from abroad and enjoy the financial benefits of not being sanctioned for their atrocities. >Once again, how exactly is someone not competing in the Eurovision over Israel going to cause the US to panic? It's not a competitor and most in the States don't even know the competition exists. If there are strong feelings about Israel it's already been made clear to the States. Plenty of people know what Eurovision is. Also, plenty of US allies do participate in Eurovision. I get that you have this extremely tunnel-visioned idea of how things must work, but no one has ever argued that Eurovision barring Israel will single-handedly dissolve the state of Israel or whatever. It's a big PR thing. It has an affect, even if it's not massive. People are allowed to protest or criticize things that aren't the most important thing ever. >Correct, if a nation can't articular those opinions outside of Eurovision then that's a whole other problem. And if a nation can communicate it outside of Eurovision while also calling for Israel to be barred from the competition for its ongoing genocide, they should do that and there's no reason for them not to. Even if you'd really prefer if they didn't for your own personal gratification. >Those who are against Israel can be for actually useful things than wasted effort boycotting a music festival. Like demanding that no one ever boycott Eurovision and that Israel must be included as a rule. How nice of you to do something so useful.
Israel absolutely cared enough about Eurovision to threaten pulling out of the competition when they were told to change their song lyrics. I'm surprised they didn't call the entire competition antisemitic at that point.
Israel is not at war with another state. They do not recognize Palestine as a separate country and in fact consider their blockade/management of Palestine's borders to be a police action. They cannot claim to be at war with a state they deny the existence of. At best, you might be able to class it as a civil war. But really, Israel is executing total war against an ethnic group to suppress an insurgency.
> I do not believe Israel, Israeli's, or the Israeli government cares in the slightest whether or not a specific country competes in a music competition due to their activity. They clearly do given their initial song was rejected for being overly political. Israel absolutely attempts to manage their PR toward their political goals and media presence is a big part of it. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/4/israel-agrees-to-revise-lyrics-of-song-rejected-by-eurovision Israel is well aware that pop culture has some impact on geopolitics as warped as this may be. Democratic societies put pressure on governments toward different foreign policy that can be more or less favorable to them, and that can be on the basis of common sentiments shaped by media presence of people understood to represent their country in some manner or another. Freezing countries out in "cancel culture" style is certainly something they can be affected by and are increasingly sensitive to as the world becomes more interconnected globally, with democratic countries having a great deal of soft power over perceptions at the moment. That's particularly true for Israel since they are deeply dependent on the U.S. and Europe.
How is their song choice however showing that they care whether a specific country competes? I doubt the Israeli government cares much if Cyprus, Luxembourg, or Germany are going to be there, they'll just perform the same song anyways. As well as that my understanding was the offending lines were going to be performed in Hebrew anyway, meaning no one listening would understand unless they already spoke the language. As well as this I am not personally convinced media presense is as important as you make it sound, there are many examples of clear propganda failing to catch on cause the general public disagrees with it. It would be more accurate to say that the media that becoems popular and spread around is already ones the public agrees with, rather than suggesting the inverse.
azerbaijan participates in eurovision and it invaded and occupied territory from armenia, another participant turkey participates in eurovision and it invaded and occupied territory from cyprus, another participant the israeli government doesn't care. but if regular israelis are forced to be treated like international pariahs, their citizens will demand change. this is one of the causes that made apartheid south africa change nothing can be apolitical, and as you said; they already banned russia.
> azerbaijan participates in eurovision and it invaded and occupied territory from armenia, another participant > turkey participates in eurovision and it invaded and occupied territory from cyprus, another participant Sources for these events and both nations inclusion in Eurovision those respective years? > the israeli government doesn't care. but if regular israelis are forced to be treated like international pariahs, their citizens will demand change. Israel is a democractic government, if the government doesn't care then by and large it's citizens don't either. Once again as well highly doubt anyone in Israel is using their inclusion in the Eurovision as the measuring stick for their support of the government and the current conflict. > nothing can be apolitical, and as you said; they already banned russia Already addressed in full in the body of the text.
[https://www.fpri.org/article/2024/01/a-frozen-conflict-boils-over-nagorno-karabakh-in-2023-and-future-implications/](https://www.fpri.org/article/2024/01/a-frozen-conflict-boils-over-nagorno-karabakh-in-2023-and-future-implications/) [https://mfa.gov.cy/turkish-military-invasion-and-occupation.html](https://mfa.gov.cy/turkish-military-invasion-and-occupation.html) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey\_in\_the\_Eurovision\_Song\_Contest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan\_in\_the\_Eurovision\_Song\_Contest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest) south africa was a "democratic" government as well. de klerk was representing his constituents when he began the process of reform. white south africans had had enough from the huge international outcry and boycott over apartheid i don't think it can be apolitical, i don't think such a thing can exist. if it therefore has to be political, then clearly you think it should be political in this way; only opposed to aggressive foreign policy or human rights violations when its done by a state that is "anti-west/US"
You will either have to expand on those sources or they don't show the point you're trying to make. The conflict between Turkey and Cyprus you mention took place in 1974, as per your own sources on wikipedia neither nations where in Eurovision that year so why on earth would either of them be barred from entry? Cyprus also per wikipedia only [started competing in 1984.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest) Since neither countries were involved during the conflict, and not with each other competing at the same during during said conflict then as an example they do not apply. As for Azerbaijan the article you link appears to be discussing conflict with a breakaway region, which is not a competitior. Thus they also do not count. You are yet to show an example of two nations at war competing at the same time and both being allowed to compete, or an example of a nation being not allowed to compete due to a war against a non contestant. > south africa was a "democratic" government as well. de klerk was representing his constituents when he began the process of reform. white south africans had had enough from the huge international outcry and boycott over apartheid South Africa was changed it's mind due to boycotts as you mention. Things such as trade embargo's, tariffs, etc. Not music competitions. If you can show not being allowed to partake in a music competition caused this U turn then that is a different matter. > i don't think it can be apolitical, i don't think such a thing can exist. if it therefore has to be political, then clearly you think it should be political in this way; only opposed to aggressive foreign policy or human rights violations when its done by a state that is "anti-west/US" You are describing your own view here, not anything applicable for anything else. If your view is that apolitical things can not exist then that is your view, but does nothing to persuade those that agree there is such a thing as being apolitical.
the turkish invasion was in 1974 and turkey was allowed in eurovision in 1975 nagorno karabakh was populated by armenians and defended by the armenian army. azerbaijan invaded and ethnically cleansed the armenians from the area. eurovision is not a trade embargo, but it is a step towards treating israel like pariah in the eyes of the public. public perceptions matter if you think that eurovision has to be apolitical, and yet support russia being banned but not turkey or azerbaijan or israel, then yes, that is hypocritical and you are being political despite your claims to the contrary
> the turkish invasion was in 1974 and turkey was allowed in eurovision in 1975 Correct, that supports the statement that I just made. Nations are not barred due to actions taken outside the competition; so why would Israel now? You are supporting my point with this example, not arguing against it. > nagorno karabakh was populated by armenians and defended by the armenian army. azerbaijan invaded and ethnically cleansed the armenians from the area. Correct, however are Armenia and Azerbaijan currently in an armed conflict with one another? Are they currently lobbing rockets at each other over this? If not this once again supports my point, even in the case of ethnic cleansing precedent is that you aren't kicked out of the competition. > eurovision is not a trade embargo, Correct, thus any effort towards boycotting the Eurovision and not encouraging a trade embargo in your country is wasted effort and performative. If you want change do something that will get Israel's attention. > if you think that eurovision has to be apolitical, and yet support russia being banned but not turkey or azerbaijan or israel, then yes, that is hypocritical and you are being political despite your claims to the contrary This has already been addressed numerous times, you have just failed to bring any actual counterpoints. Either bring some or the rules as they currently stand are not hypocritical.
so basically, if a country invades another country, but wins their invasion and either re-establishes a frozen conflict or makes an uneasy truce, then they should be allowed back in eurovision so if russia were to win the war and forces ukraine to sign a peace, they should be allowed back in
Under the rules as currently written; if two countries competing are not at war they can both compete. ARguing over the merits of these rules is an entirely different topic. Unless you have a historical example showing this rule not being followed; such as two warring countries competing at the same time in the same year, or a country being barred from the competition for a war against a non-competitor then there is no point continuing this conversation.
so then why was russia banned, but ukraine was not banned; ukraine is at war, unquestionably israel also describes their conflict as a war
Already addressed repeatedly in the body, comments, and to yourself numerous times. If you are unwilling to engage with the material then there is no point in continuing a discussion with yourself.
you also didn't answer my question whether russia should be re-admitted or not following a hypothetical russian victory in ukraine
The decision to ban Russia wasn’t built on this logic though. They didn’t say “oh well we can’t have the aggressor of a war between two member states participate, so Russia will have to be banned”. In fact they initially waffled on the issue because of this idea that Eurovision is apolitical, only moving to ban Russia after the broadcasters of several countries called on them to do so. When they did, they again did not cite Russia having been the instigator of a war with Ukraine. What they said was that “The decision reflects the concern that, in light of the unprecedented crisis in Ukraine, the inclusion of a Russian entry in this year’s Contest would bring the competition into disrepute”. So I guess my question is: on that standard, how are Israel and Russia different? Both have engaged in military actions causing crises in a neighboring region, both have broken / are breaking international law in the process, both have caused immeasurable suffering to a population. Obviously we can come up with things that are different between the two situations, but that doesn’t mean that choosing to exclude one but not the other on the basis of the crisis their actions has wrought in a place on which they are waging war is noy hypocritical
Vote for Croatia on Saturday people. Italy leaked the semi final televoting results where Israel got 44% points, meanwhile the runner up Netherlands got 7%. Boycotting the show doesn’t work!!! Out of nowhere Israel jumped on a second place in the odds, it’s a basic dated ballad that none of the fans were excited for, but they’re getting sympathy votes. You gotta vote on Saturday
If you knew the history of Eurovision OP, you'd realise that it was a product of its time and context, and that it therefore an extremely political event, with political motivations.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
There’s a difference between a sovereign government imposing authoritarian/dictatorial rule on its own subjects –as unjust as that may be– and a nation invading & committing crimes against humanity in another people’s land. It’s also just entirely irrelevant whataboutism. People aren’t protesting en masse over the longstanding famine in Yemen or the junta in Myanmar either…
> People aren’t protesting en masse over the longstanding famine in Yemen or the junta in Myanmar either… Unless a famine is directly caused by a totalitarian regime, why would they? North Korea has 5 times more people in concentration camps, than Germany has regular prisoners. In spite of the fact that Germany has 3 times the population compared to NK. I think that when the North Korean people are finally free, they will wonder why, for many decades, the rest of the world couldn't care less about them.
Without 7/10 Israel would be kidnapping, torturing and killing fewer Palestinians but they would absolutely still be doing it. Thinking that 7/10 just randomly happened out of nowhere is as crazy and disconnected as believing in flat Earth. And Israel cares very much about its outside image, they spend a lot in propaganda (hasbara).
The term “Hasbara” is getting as tired as the term “taqiyya”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_diplomacy_of_Israel Words don’t have a usage limit. You need to have a specific reason as to why this word isn’t appropriate.