Why I Won’t Be Covering Eden Golan’s Hurricane

Hey everyone:

Like many other fan sites, we will not be covering the Israeli entry this year. My site is much tinier than others – it’s just me – but I do want to make my position clear. 

I want the hostages released; I would like peace in Israel and Palestine. I do not support the Hamas attacks of October 7, which resulted in the deaths of over 1,000 people. The Israeli government has responded to the events of October 7 with disproportionate force that is in violation of international law. Adequate aid is not getting through to people in Gaza; there are allegations that the army has tortured UN staff; tens of thousands of Palestinians are dead or are dying slowly from lack of food or health care. The International Court of Justice has ruled it is plausible that the Israeli government has committed acts that could be defined as genocide. Such actions are unacceptable. 

As a broadcaster, KAN has supported the actions of the Israeli government, airing footage of a staff member signing a bomb to be used in the current conflict. KAN’s initial submissions to Eurovision were deemed to be too political by the EBU, and their current song was only accepted after intercession from Israel’s President, Isaac Herzog. In similar situations – such as that with the Belarussian entry in 2021 –  the EBU has never given so many chances to a broadcaster. 

For many outside the Eurovision bubble, this decision not to cover Israel’s entry may not make sense. Surely, they think, Eurovision is an apolitical event – a place where countries come together to share their cultures. Excluding an Israeli pop star from having her chance on the Eurovision stage is unfair. After all, she is just a singer, not a representative of the government!

Except that in this case, the Israeli representative is not a neutral party. She is not singing a generic pop song written by a group of Swedish songwriters, but a song written by a group of writers chosen by KAN, designed to convey a message – as seen in the first two entries which were rejected. The lyrics of the songs rejected contained references to the October 7 attacks by Hamas. One can argue that the accepted song – Hurricane – still contains a significant number of the same lyrics, and could be seen to also be about the October 7 attacks. 

Now, the argument will be made that we have had songs about political events, specifically war, before. Jamala won the 2016 contest for Ukraine with the song 1944, which was about the genocide of the Crimean Tartar population by Soviet authorities. Last year, the Croatian band Let 3 brought a song which was a satire of Vladimir Putin and his attempt to curry favour with Eastern European countries – a connection made explicitly clear post-contest with the cover art for their associated album. So political songs have clearly been in the contest before. Why is the case of Israel this year different?

The case of the 2024 Israeli song is different from the examples cited above for two reasons. The less important one, from my view, is time – Jamala (and others, such as Armenia’s 2015 entry Face the Shadow) was referring to a historical event – one that affected her family, and one that was written based on her personal history – but not one that had happened in the past few months. It was an event that had happened years previously. 

The more important factor, to me, is the entity putting forward the song. In 2023, Let 3’s arguable political song was written and staged by them, with no input from the national broadcaster to make it more political. It was chosen as part of a public selection process, and several of the more controversial staging elements which were apparent in the National Final – such as the reference to Lenin – were removed for the Eurovision stage. But while the 2024 Israeli singer was chosen as part of a talent show competition, the song itself was chosen and put forward by the public broadcaster KAN.

When a song comes not from the artist, but from a broadcaster that is a voice for the government, the song moves from an expression of cultural pride and “smart power” to an expression of government policy, no matter how many BPM are behind it. KAN is a broadcaster who has supported the Israeli government’s wartime actions, and their song can be viewed as propaganda, used to gain support for the Israeli government’s position on the Eurovision stage. 

Although the EBU has accepted Hurricane as a neutral alternative to October Rain, the issue is that Hurricane is just the same song with a new haircut, written by the same team and the same broadcaster with one goal – game the system just enough to get the song accepted. 

And that brings me to the other reason I won’t be covering Hurricane. From the perspective of a blogger trying to communicate the context around the entries in the Eurovision Song Contest, it’s pointless. The acceptance of a song which is essentially propaganda means that it will be treated as propaganda, regardless of its worth. It’s already being lovebombed with positive reviews by those who support the Israeli government’s position, while others are mobilising to boo Eden at her performance. As a critic, I am choosing not to engage with a song that is using the contest for its own ends, none of which actually include trying to win a song competition with a good song, staging, or performance. 

Look, Eurovision is not an apolitical event. Countries use the contest as a way to define their national identity. Sometimes they use it to showcase their national culture. At other times, their participation can be seen as a way to signify their relationship with Europe – or, in the case of Russia, Turkey, Belarus and Hungary, a government’s wish to distance themselves from Europe. Internal selection can also be used to convey specific messages to the European community – such as Russia’s choice of Julia Samoylova in 2017 and 2018 in a cynical attempt to make Europe look like it was discriminating against a disabled performer/limit the number of boos received during her performances. But there is a difference between using the contest to burnish a nation’s image internationally, and using it to support the policy goals of a specific government – especially when that government is engaged in violations of international law. 

If I won’t be covering the Israeli entry this year, what will I be doing for the contest?

• I will continue my coverage of other entries; this year, there are many exciting artists doing interesting things playing with genre and sound. I think that these deserve explaining and context. Even if people will not be watching Eurovision on the night, these songs still exist outside of the context of the competition. 
• I will be going to Eurovision; what I end up doing during that week in Malmo remains to be seen. I think there need to be fans there who will express their disappointment with a decision that does not live up to the ideals with which the EBU markets this contest. I do know I will either be leaving the arena floor during Israel’s song or turning my back/sitting down (I’m in the standing section) during the performance. I will neither clap nor boo; my goal is not to react to the song and engage in silent protest at its inclusion. 
• I plan to once again do my zine this year, and would like to make it available for download with a suggested donation to the UNRWA or another group working to bring aid to Palestinians in Gaza, but more information will come out about this once I actually get around to writing the damn thing.
• I will be turning my anger towards the people who have put us in this position, and not toward the Eurofans I see online who are wrestling about how to address a situation in which they never should have been placed. I hope we can support each other even though we may come to different decisions as to what we are personally doing, 

(As a side note, I may not end up covering the song from Azerbaijan as well – that’s going to require more research, but as noted, it’s just me!)