My Word: Biden, the Eurovision, and offensive questions and answers

A question can be more telling than the answer. Such was the case in last week’s press conference ahead of the Eurovision Song Contest in Malmo, Sweden.

A Polish journalist asked Israel’s contestant Eden Golan: “Have you ever thought that by being here, you bring risk and danger for other participants?” He probably thought he was doing his job instead of a terrorist organization’s dirty work.

A European Broadcasting Union (EBU) official told Golan she didn’t have to answer, while Dutch singer Joost Klein, soon to be ousted before the final show for unrelated obnoxious behavior, asked: “Why not?”

Since Golan is a super-talented, 20-year-old singer rather than an experienced Israeli diplomat, she gave a decent answer about the EBU taking security precautions and “making it a safe place for everyone.”

The answer should have been that the question should not have been asked. Golan was not the one threatening the security of the international event. The Iranian-backed terrorist organizations and their sympathizers marching through Malmo and elsewhere, calling for the destruction of Israel and the demise of the West, are the ones endangering the very values the West is meant to represent: freedom, democracy, and safety.

Far be it for me to point out to a journalist from Poland, of all places, that appeasing aggressors doesn’t work. Would the world be a safer place were Israel to be banned from participating in international events like Eurovision and sporting competitions because of terrorist threats?

Would that put an end to jihadist terrorism or encourage it? First the Jews, then the Sunday people.

Even if you did not watch Eurovision – and I don’t blame you, some acts were grotesque – it’s worth looking at the voting. Eden gave a stellar performance with “Hurricane.” It is a haunting number, which for Israelis and Jews reflects the trauma of the October 7 Hamas mega-atrocity, but almost anyone who has suffered a loss and stormy times can relate to it. She gave it her all and was able to tune out the boos whenever Israel was mentioned and when she took to the stage.

National juries fear showing support for Israel 

No national jury was willing to grant Israel the coveted “douze points,” the 12-point highest score. The televotes by the international public, however, told a different story. In 14 countries, including those not traditionally friendly with Israel, voters gave Israel top marks, at one point pushing “Hurricane” to the top of the voting charts. 

On the public vote, Israel came in second place. Combined with the national juries, Golan managed to reach the very respectable fifth spot out of 25 finalists – a remarkable achievement under the circumstances.

Why was there such a huge discrepancy between the national juries and the public televotes? For the same reason the Polish journalist asked his question. No country had a jury whose members were willing to publicly risk supporting Israel, even if they could appreciate the merits of the song and performance. 

The televoting, on the other hand, was anonymous: People didn’t feel threatened and could express their support. Israel could have won Eurovision had the national juries not been spineless, had they been loyal to the slogan of “United through Music” instead of marching to the beat of the bullies in the pro-Hamas rallies outside the arena.

Well done, UN! You have managed to make the Palestinians holier than the Vatican, the only other entity that had a similar non-member observer state status.

Welcome to the international body dominated by undemocratic countries – a body hijacked by the Palestinians and their terrorist threats ever since Yasser Arafat infamously stood at the plenum in 1974 “bearing an olive branch and a freedom fighter’s gun.”

When the UN is obsessed with denouncing Israel and supporting the Palestinians – while terrorists’ rockets rain down on a sovereign member state – there are a lot of questions to be asked, starting with “Who is endangering whom?”

It is not yet clear what the Palestinians’ new, improved UN status will grant them. Absurdly, it is also not clear who represents them and where. The State of Palestine does not have official borders. The Palestinians can be defined only in relation to the State of Israel, “between the river and the sea.” 

The Arab world turned down the 1947 UN partition plan, preferring to declare war on the nascent Jewish state rather than create a Palestinian state. It’s a pattern that has been repeated ever since in wars, intifadas, and rounds of terrorism. And now it is being rewarded with greater international recognition.

Who is the leader of the Palestinians? There’s the Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas, sitting uneasily in Ramallah in the 19th year of his four-year term, with a pay-for-slay policy rewarding terrorists and their families. And there’s the Hamas leadership in Gaza (and Qatar) who orchestrated the barbaric invasion and mega-atrocity in which more than 1,200 were murdered, thousands wounded, and hundreds abducted.

What message does the UN vote give to other separatist organizations, terrorist or peaceful? Especially as the voting took place as the war precipitated by Hamas continues. For all those calling for “Ceasefire now,” keep in mind that there was a ceasefire in force. Hamas and Islamic Jihad broke it with their mega-atrocity on October 7. 

They could end the war with the release of the 132 hostages, starting with the immediate return of the 90+ who may still be alive, and then the bodies of those they murdered. 

The UN vote was another vote against Israel and in favor of terrorism. The barrage of rockets on Beersheba after the vote might have been coincidental but sounded like a fitting celebration for Hamas.

This week he announced in a television interview that he would withhold some arms shipments to Israel if the country (still suffering from rocket fire) finally decided to take (limited) action in Rafah. The demands for “humanitarian aid” to Gaza – fueling the Hamas regime – continued, even after the Kerem Shalom crossing where aid transfers take place came under lethal fire.

If this is friendship, imagine what would happen were Biden an enemy. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and their Iranian sponsor should thank him. Sadly, it creates even less incentive for Hamas to free the hostages.

Not coincidentally, Egypt, while pretending like Qatar to be a fair mediator, has now joined South Africa’s lawsuit in the International Court of Justice accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza. Egypt, it should be noted, has reinforced its border with the Gaza Strip and refuses to accept displaced Gazans. Cairo’s instinct for self-preservation obviously supersedes its solidarity with the Palestinians.

Ironically, withholding precise weapons means that Israel might be forced to use less accurate weapons. But that was not the only absurdity in the policy announcement. The US president said: 

“We’re not walking away from Israel’s security. We’re walking away from Israel’s ability to wage war in those areas [Rafah]” and promised: “We’re going to continue to make sure Israel is secure in terms of Iron Dome and their ability to respond to attacks that came out of the Middle East recently.”

Does Biden expect Israelis to sit in their shelters and rely on the Iron Dome and other anti-rocket systems instead of tackling the source of the rockets? Imagine telling Britain in World War II to keep a stiff upper lip and just accept the Blitz, provide Nazi Germany with fuel and humanitarian aid, and, above all, don’t endanger German lives in the effort to end the Nazi regime.

If Israel is not able to defend itself – hitting back at its enemies – nobody will be safe. “Ironclad support” is meaningless if it translates as a steely grip preventing Israel from taking action.