Eurovision 2025's biggest controversies, from Israel boycotts to lyric rows
The Eurovision Song Contest might appear to be frivolous fun on the surface, but the event is often hit by protests, boycotts and controversy - and 2025's competition in Basel, Switzerland is no exception.
Amid ongoing calls for Israel to be banned from the contest, pro-Palestinian campaigners have been staging protests already with more planned for Saturday when the grand final is due to take place.
However, Israel's attendance is not the only controversy at the 69th Eurovision Song Contest – these are the difficult moments the event has had to navigate so far.
Israel's inclusion in the song contest has been a controversial topic since last year, when 2024 contestant Eden Golan sparked calls for boycotts over her original song October Rain, thought to reference militant group Hamas kidnapping and killing Israelis on 7 October 2023. It was later changed to the track Hurricane.
Pro-Palestinian campaigners have targeted the contest again this year, which has welcomed Israeli performer Yuval Raphael to the competition in Basel. Raphael is a survivor of the 2023 Hamas attacks, and was at the Nova festival where Hamas killed more than 350 people.
She is due to perform her song New Day Will Rise at the second semi-final on Thursday, 15 May and has been tipped to do well in the voting, but local campaigners Basel for Palestine attempted to place Palestinian flags on the parade route for the contest's launch on Sunday.
Further protests are said to be planned for grand final day on Saturday, while Israel's government has issued a warning to its citizens travelling to the event over the risk of being targeted.
Former Eurovision competitors including Ireland's winner Charlie McGettigan and the UK's 2023 act Mae Muller have signed a letter calling for a ban on Israel's public broadcaster Kan, and accusing Israel of 'genocide', which Israel denies. Irish protesters, including The Crying Game actor Stephen Rea, called for an RTE boycott of the event.
Away from contestant controversy, the 2025 event has also been targeted by a cyber attack.
Footage of the rehearsals was leaked online after hackers managed to access it, potentially spoiling the big staging reveal for the acts involved.
Competition organisers believe the leaked footage has now been removed and are said to have lawyers, as well as a cyber security team, working on what happened.
Eurovision has a long history of risqué songs and performances, but Malta's Miriana Conte claims she innocently fell foul of European Broadcasting Union (EBU) decency rules with her track Kant. It translates as "singing", but Malta had to change their song title to Serving after concerns over its similarity to vulgar language.
In March, Conte posted her disappointment in the decision on Facebook: "We've just been notified that European Broadcasting Union – EBU – has decided against using the Maltese word 'Kant' in our entry in the Eurovision Song Contest. While I'm shocked and disappointed, especially since we have less than a week to submit the song, I promise you this: the show will go on — Diva NOT down."
She also had to remove the lyric "serving kant", a popular term to refer to being fierce. Speaking on TikTok in March, Conte added: "I was disappointed. I cannot lie and say I wasn't because obviously, 'kant' to us here means singing. I thought that maybe the song would lose the magic but, to be honest, I have such a big following, such big supporters, that even now with the new version people tell me they can still hear it in their heads."
Malta's entry isn't the only controversial song for 2025 – while Estonia's Tommy Cash has proved a competition favourite with his song Espresso Macchiato, he's less popular with the Italians.
The song has caused some offence for including a number of stereotypical references to Italian culture, as well as anglicised mispronunciations of words.
Gian Marco Centinaio, the vice president of the Italian Senate, has even weighed in on the issue, commenting on Instagram: "He [Tommy Cash] should come to Italy and see how decent people really work before daring to write such a stupid and stereotypical song."
Cash, on the other hand, has embraced the controversy by posting jokey videos on TikTok including a mock-up of him being arrested by Italian police.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is arming Gazan militias and clans an effective tactic?
Relying on a tribal militia or clan in Gaza may work in the short term. However, in the long term it is unlikely to achieve success. On June 5 reports confirmed that Israel has been arming and apparently supporting or working with an armed militias in Gaza. Some reports refer to this group as a 'gang.' Other reports describe the leader of the group, Yasser Abu Shabab, as a member of a large clan in southern Gaza. There may be more clans being activated or encouraged than just the one linked to Yasser Abu Shabab. Shabab is not his real name and his name is a nomme de guerre, meaning the full details about this group continue to be shrouded in some mystery. As the details are shrouded in some fog, it is hard to know if these groups will become an effective anti-Hamas movement. If the groups aregangs that are more well-known for looting and crimes in the past, rather than achieving much, then they will likely not be embraced by the average people. If the groups are made up of clans or even men with links to Bedouin tribes, then it's possible that it will be hard for them to make inroads among other Gazans. It's worth asking whether the new militias in Gaza may be effective and whether history tells us that arming militias is an effective tactic. First, let's look at what we know about Gaza. It's worth noting that Gaza's population is divided into different groups. There are people who came to Gaza as refugees in 1949 1949, fleeing areas in the Negev that became part of Israel. These people likely make up more than half the population of Gaza. Then there are the people in Gaza who trace their heritage to people who lived in Gaza for hundreds of years before 1948. Those people could be called the original Gazans. They are very different than those called 'refugees.' The refugees moved to camps such as Khan Younis, Rafah, Maghazai, Deir al-Balah, Jabaliya, Nuseirat and Shati. The camps became the backbone of the Palestinian political and armed movements. They also became a hotbed of Hamas activity in the 1980s and 1990s, and thus a hotbed of terrorist activity. The Gaza Gazans, who predate 1948, are less inclined toward Hamas. This means that any attempt by the armed militias, gangs or clans will face hurdles in terms of penetrating Gazan society. This is because groups that have roots in one area, may not be popular in others, or they may even alienate people. Back in the 1980s, Gazan families and clans were often involved in violence against one another. This kind of family violence is also common to Arab villages in Israel, where there has been an unprecedented level of gun violence in recent years. This kind of violence means people are often divided and it is hard to unify them, either militarily or politically. What does history tell us about the challenge that militaries or countries have in recruiting or arming tribes, mercenaries, militias or other types of paramilitary groups? In antiquity, it was not uncommon for tribes to play a role as auxiliaries alongside normal military formations. In addition, it was common that when countries were at war they would often bring along a cavalcade of smaller allies. For instance, when Hannibal was fighting Rome, he had to recruit people from Italy because the actual number of Carthaginians in his army began to decline over time. By the 15th and 16th century, mercenaries played a major role in fighting amongst the Italian city states. This was the era of Machiavelli, who wrote that mercenaries were often 'disunited, ambitious, [and] undisciplined.' However, mercenaries continued to be used by European states. The British employed Hessian mercenaries and others during the Revolutionary War. These groups generally did not prove effective. In addition, the British and other colonial powers often relied on alliances with tribes to help during wartime or to keep the peace on the frontier. For instance, at the battle of Isandlwana, the British army fighting the Zulus included a number of local native troops. The native troops of the Natal Native Contingent, for instance, included tribes that had fought the Zulus. Henan Cortes, during his conquest of the Aztec empire, allied with groups that had been suppressed by the Aztecs in the past. In the modern times, many countries have sought to work with tribes and militias. For instance, Lawrence of Arabia worked with tribes that were in revolt against the Ottoman Empire. During the Vietnam war, the US often worked with Montagnard fighters who opposed the Communists. The US also worked with the Hmong people in Laos. Later, during the US occupation in Iraq the US relied on a group called the Sons of Iraq or Sahweh, which were Sunni tribal militias. These were concentrated in Anbar province. Rwanda has long backed groups in eastern Congo who are made up of members of the Tutsi minority. What this history tells us is that there is a long tradition of working with tribal militias, clans, gangs or mercenaries. However, historically these groups do not have a lasting ability to achieve results. Usually, they are used as part of a policy and then they are usually abandoned when a war is over. In other cases, they simply fade away. The Sunni 'awakening' groups in Iraq, for instance, were starved of resources after the US left Iraq in 2011. Some of the tribes that supported the US continued to play a role. During the ISIS invasion of Iraq, a number of tribes near Haditha helped hold off the ISIS attack. These included the Jughayfa tribe and the Albu Nimr tribe. ISIS persecuted tribal groups that resisted. Key Sunni tribes such as the Shammar opposed ISIS and similar extremists. However, most of these tribes are not able to operate on a national level, they can only help secure certain areas. The use of tribes and militias usually enable states to carve out areas of influence in states they are intervening in. When there is a chaotic state on the border or a weak state, countries will often seek to arm local groups to help protect their borders. This can backfire because the groups may end up going on rampages and massacring people, or they may escalate a war in a neighboring country. The Vietnam War, for instance, destabilized Cambodia and Laos and this led to great suffering over the years. Minority groups who were exploited as allies often were betrayed. In other situations states will try to co-opt or even work with drug cartels, which is how Mexico's former PRI appeared to have run the country in the 1980s and 1990s. When this broke down the country fell into a brutal cycle of violence as the cartels had become more powerful than some state governments. Relying on a tribal militia or clan in Gaza may work in the short term. However, in the long term it is unlikely to achieve success. The theory that Israeli soldiers' lives will be saved via this alliance is not necessarily proven by history. Usually, when states think they can provide guns to tribes or militias as a short-term fix, they find out later that they are drawn into more complex wars. For instance, the spillover from the Rwandan genocide has led to fighting in eastern Congo for thirty years. Has the use of proxies and tribes and militias there helped Rwanda or Congo or anyone else in the long term? Probably not. The same can be said for Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia or many other states teetering on failure and civil war. A long civil war in Gaza will likely harm Israel in the long term.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UK Comedian Dawn French Apologizes For 'Clumsy Tone In One-Sided Gaza Video'
UK comedian Dawn French has posted a public apology after posting a video about the war in Gaza, and removed the item from her social media. The 40-second video posted earlier this week showed the star of BBC sitcom The Vicar of Dibley share her views on the conflict, saying 'Complicated, no, but nuanced. But [the] bottom line is no.' More from Deadline BBC Condemns Israel After IDF Soldiers Strip-Searched & Detained Journalists At Gunpoint Cannes Expresses "Profound Sadness" At Death Of Gaza Photojournalist Fatima Hassouna Paramount+ Boards BBC Comedy 'Can You Keep A Secret?' Starring Dawn French & Craig Roberts Switching into a high-pitched voice, she continued: 'Yeah, but you know they did a bad thing to us, yeah but no. But we want that land… and we have history… No. Those people aren't really even people, are they really? No.' Following a backlash with people complaining she was mocking the October 7 attack that ignited the war, French removed the video Saturday and said she never meant to 'mock, or dismiss, or diminish the horror' of the event. She wrote on social media:'I hope you will understand my intention was not to offend, but I clearly have. For which I am sorry and I have removed the video.' French said that she had posted a video in the style that she has been using for social media 'in an effort to convey an important point', although she added that she had 'clumsily used a mocking tone.' 'My intention was NEVER to mock, or dismiss, or diminish the horror of what happened on 7 October 2023 and what continues to unfold from that brutal unthinkable, unforgiveable, savage attack.' She said her intention had been 'to mock and point the finger of shame at the behaviour of the cruel leaders on all sides of this atrocious war.' 'THEY were my target, but clearly I failed to do that, and that's on me. I apologise unreservedly, and I'm particularly sorry that my disgust at Hamas didn't figure. It appeared one-sided and that is wrong.' Almost 1,200 people were killed on October 7 2023 when Hamas led a cross-border attack and took 251 hostages. BBC News reports that 54 remain in captivity. Israel launched a retaliatory campaign in Gaza, with a reported death toll of 54,607. Best of Deadline 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery 2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery 'Stick' Soundtrack: All The Songs You'll Hear In The Apple TV+ Golf Series
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Abbott calls Starmer's immigration comments ‘fundamentally racist' at rally
Backbench Labour MP Diane Abbott has criticised Sir Keir Starmer's comments on immigration as 'fundamentally racist' at a protest rally, suggesting the Government was copying the rhetoric of Reform UK. Thousands of trade unionists, campaigners and activists gathered to 'send a message' to the Government at a demonstration over spending cuts and welfare reform in central London on Saturday. Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and Ms Abbott were among those who gave speeches at the rally outside Downing Street following a march. Organisers The People's Assembly accused the Government of making spending cuts that target the poorest in society. The Prime Minister said the UK risked becoming 'an island of strangers' when he unveiled plans for tighter controls on immigration in a major speech last month, leading to a mixed reaction from different parties. Addressing the protest crowd in Whitehall, Ms Abbott – who was previously suspended by Labour in 2023 before being allowed to run in last year's general election – said there was an international struggle to 'fight the rich and the powerful (and) to fight the racists', including in her own party. The Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP said: 'I was very disturbed to hear Keir Starmer on the subject of immigration. 'He talked about closing the book on a squalid chapter for our politics – immigrants represent a squalid chapter. 'He talked about how he thought immigration has done incalculable damage to this green and pleasant land, which, of course, is nonsense – immigrants built this land. 'And, finally, he said we risk becoming an island of strangers. 'I thought that was a fundamentally racist thing to say. It is contrary to Britain's history. 'My parents came to this country in the 50s. They were not strangers. They helped to build this country. 'I think Keir Starmer is quite wrong to say that the way that you beat Reform is to copy Reform.' Reform's leader Nigel Farage previously said his party 'very much enjoyed' Sir Keir's speech, as it showed he was 'learning a great deal' from them. Representatives from the National Education Union, Revolutionary Communist Party, Green Party and the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union could be seen at the demonstration's start point in Portland Place. The large crowd then set off towards Whitehall shortly before 1pm. Many of the protesters were holding placards that read 'Tax the rich, stop the cuts – welfare not warfare'. Other signs being held aloft said 'Nurses not nukes' and 'Cut war, not welfare'. Mr Corbyn, who also criticised Sir Keir's 'island of strangers' comments, told protesters at the rally: 'As the wars rage around the world – the killing fields in Ukraine and Russia, the abominable, deliberate starvation of children in Gaza and the genocide that's inflicted against the Palestinian people continues – surely to goodness we need a world of peace. 'We need a world of peace that will come through the vision of peace, the vision of disarmament and the vision of actually challenging the causes of war, which leads to the desperation and the refugee flows of today.' The Independent MP for Islington North urged protesters to 'go forward as a movement of hope, of what we can achieve together (and) the society we can build together'. The People's Assembly said trade unionists, health, disability, housing and welfare campaigners with community organisations came together for the protest under the slogan 'No to Austerity2.0'. A spokesperson said: 'The adherence to 'fiscal rules' traps us in a public service funding crisis, increasing poverty, worsening mental health and freezing public sector pay. 'Scrapping winter fuel payments, keeping the Tory two-child benefit cap, abandoning Waspi women, cutting £5 billion of welfare by limiting Pip and universal credit eligibility, and slashing UK foreign aid from 0.5% to 0.3% of GDP, while increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, are presented as 'tough choices'. 'Real tough choices would be for a Labour government to tax the rich and their hidden wealth, to fund public services, fair pay, investment in communities and the NHS.'
