In the days before Eurovision, many were calling for its boycott, citing Israel's participation. Despite that, the organisers invited Israel because they did not want, as stated, to take a political position. However, a few years ago it banned (and continues to disallow) Russia's participation because of its Ukraine invasion. So perhaps we are talking about a double standard. We saw different approaches to each of the two invasions from too many states, where they were indifferent to one or both issues.
Eurovision, of course, is not a state; it is a spectacle. So, despite what might have happened behind the scenes with Israel, the competition remains a mirror of Europe: while most European countries were concerned by Russia arriving on their continent, the same cannot be said for the out-of-range Middle East. That is why we saw solidarity with Ukraine (defender) and a simultaneous favour or tolerance towards Israel (attacker). Similarly, the competition let Israel participate, but not Russia.
The matter, however, is not why Eurovision did what it did, but why we care. What do we gain by boycotting a song contest? What do we gain from Marina Satti's yawn towards Israel? Nothing at all. The tide of war will not change and lives will continue to be unjustly lost. Many, of course, realize this and again call for a boycott. Many times it is not the change that a protest can bring about, but the satisfaction of people's self-righteousness.
This all links to a more general phenomenon: cancel culture. This phenomenon is the boycott of events, works of art, people etc. due to their clashing with the views of an opinionated group of people. Thus, an internet mass is formed and starts rallying against an enemy, with the intent of de-platforming them. This "cancellation" of the individual means the silencing of their views, and by extension the other side’s argument. In that case, the conversations that are necessary for the betterment of our society, are also “cancelled”. It would be arrogant and foolish to believe that we are always on the right side of an argument. But we can only see the problems with our arguments when we converse with the other side. In any other case, our differences only grows with time and no side progresses or refines their argument. No change is achieved.
Even when cancel culture is enforced by the “right” side of the argument, the problem is not resolved, it is merely not heard. Anyone who disagrees with the mass’s argument keeps quiet, in fear of public outrage. In effect, the person doesn’t change his or her opinions, only keeps them private. What is worse, since one side is silenced and has its freedom of expression restricted, it eventually erupts and causes greater harm. I have to clarify that I am not referring to Palestine cause, of course, but the problem with cancel culture in general.
Ultimately, our world will always require the sacrifice (or annulment) of a scapegoat. I wouldn't call Eurovision a victim but I will call it a distraction from the real goal: peace. While influencers and the masses try to invalidate third parties to gain some attention, they are diverting this attention from the real problems. Therefore, while demonstrating our high "morality", we simultaneously lose it. The more we silence the other side, the more we dig the burying pit of our society. While the Palestinian genocide is unfolding before our eyes, we talk about music. On May 19, all Greeks remember the genocide of the Pontians, and witnessing a new one. Our ancestors experienced this horror. That is why we cannot forget or be silent. The world will move forward with or without Eurovision. It won’t without debate.
