The real winner of Eurovision was Israel
Israel’s Eurovision entry barely made a dent on the scoreboard but there’s no doubt that the Jewish State was the real winner of the Eurovision Song Content 2019.Fans sing along to most pro-LGBT Eurovision, though winning song isn’t kitschy
Israel was hosting the competition for the fourth time in history but for the first in twenty years – and in an era where Eurovision is simulcast on YouTube and more and more countries have joined the contest, in an age of age of instant responses and scrutiny via social media with a global viewing audience that has swelled to 200 million people.
Eurovision is always loud, often garish and I admit to watching some of the songs with the “Mute” button pressed - but to be the host is a big deal and for Israel more than most. It also requires a lot – and Israel more than delivered. When Netta Barzilai triumphantly lifted the trophy last year, questions and concerns loomed: Which city would host? Would the contest be derailed – or even cancelled – by BDS, the anti-Israel boycotters? Could Israel do it and not go bankrupt in the process, or would the whole thing be a disaster?
Israel can feel vindicated on every level.
Tel Aviv was the natural home for camp, party-loving Eurovision with no disrespect to any other city including the capital. Jerusalemites also hosted Eurovision celebrations and the tourism influx was a boon to Jerusalem as it was to Tel Aviv and elsewhere with thousands of visitors converging on the Jewish State. In 2018, tourism was at an all-time high with 4.1 million people coming to Israel, up 14% on the previous year; with the Eurovision boost, 2019 could surpass even that.
And to answer the question of if geographically-small Israel could host a major event, the largest music competition in the world, the answer this week is a resounding: YES. Israel’s national broadcaster, Kan put on a slick, polished, dynamic production. The stage looked every bit as fabulous as previous venues. Outside the concert hall, Tel Aviv’s Eurovision Village was heaving all week and the positivity of the event resounded.
This year’s Eurovision Song Contest went to the Netherlands and its 25-year-old Dutch singer Duncan Laurence, with his solo piece “Arcade.”
The country hasn’t won the Eurovision since 1975, and Laurence was a fan favorite from the start, although he was told in rehearsals that he needed to look more closely at the camera to engage the television audiences.
Laurence’s song is a sweeping ode with a strong refrain to love and loss, and was in stark contrast to many of the other songs, which were high on camp, kitsch and dance tempos.
Fans loved “Arcade,” but they didn’t sing along or clap to it, simply because it’s not that kind of song. And Eurovision fans love a good refrain and an opportunity to clap in time.
Fans at the Eurovision press screening in the Tel Aviv Expo on May 18, 2019 (Jessica Steinberg/Times of Israel)
Despite the nature of the winning song, Saturday night’s show may have been the campiest Eurovision yet, with France’s gay Muslim singer Bilal Hassani bringing his message of tolerance, the bondage-happy trio Hatari from Iceland with their techno punk thrust, the presence of Israel’s Dana International and Austria’s Conchita Wurst, and Madonna’s monk-like choir wearing gas masks for her rendition of her new song, “Future.”
It was a show that thrilled the many LGBT fans who converged on the Expo Tel Aviv venue and are among the most die-hard Eurovision fans; many of them had carefully learned about the contestants from each country, even memorizing the words to the songs.
Petra Marquardt-Bigman: Anti-Israel bias at Human Rights Watch (Part 2: Two decades of anti-Zionism)
Conclusion – HRW’s anti-Israel bias is beyond repairJohn Podhoretz: Herman Wouk, 1915-2019 Entertainment with a deeper purpose.
Just following some of the leading HRW officials on Twitter and looking for their pronouncements on Israel would provide almost daily new evidence that they don’t even bother to pretend to be impartial and fair.
But I think all you really need to know about HRW and its attitude to Israel is that almost 20 years ago, when peace still seemed possible and a U.S. president did all he could to achieve it, HRW decided to endorse Palestinian demands for a “right to return,” thereby endorsing Palestinian demands to transform the world’s only Jewish state into yet another Arab-Muslim majority state.
For all practical intents and purposes, HRW has therefore been an anti-Zionist organization ever since. As far as HRW is concerned, Israel’s existence as a Jewish state is a violation of Palestinian human rights.
Whether Omar Shakir sits in an office in Jerusalem or in New York will not make a difference to his output, and whoever might replace him will obviously also toe the HRW line on Israel. At the same time, I don’t quite see why Israel should give a work permit to employees of foreign NGOs who come to work for the demise of the Jewish state. By trying to force Israel to host a longtime anti-Israel activist, HRW has provided a stark reminder of its bias and its arrogant attitude that it has no need to even pretend to be impartial.
But this is arguably not only about Israel. If an organization is so shameless about its bias towards one country, it seems reasonable to question how much ideological fixations affect its work on other countries. The apparently widespread idea that an organization working on human rights must be assumed to reflect the highest ethical standards and should be automatically exempt from scrutiny and criticism is certainly not justified.
In addition, HRW staff will also use their social media clout to tout political viewpoints that may not have all that much to do with their work.
Rashida Tlaib’s recent revolting effort to rewrite history by claiming Palestinians provided a safe haven for Jews during and after the Holocaust provides a good example. As of this writing, the timelines of Sarah Leah Whitson and Omar Shakir feature a combined 15 re-tweets—in just 24 hours—in defense of Tlaib. But perhaps Tlaib, just like HRW, has the human right not to be criticized, especially not by Israel supporters, who, as Ken Roth has decreed, come up only with “lies and deception” or “lies and obfuscation.
Anti-Israel bias at Human Rights Watch is so pervasive, and has gone on so long, that it is beyond repair. HRW should be disregarded as a legitimate neutral voice on anything related to Israel. (h/t IsaacStorm)
In 2013, I commissioned and published an apology to a writer who I felt had been mistreated in the pages of COMMENTARY—and by my father, no less!
“How This Magazine Wronged Herman Wouk” was the name of the article by Michael J. Lewis, and the occasion for it was the fact that the then-97-year-old Wouk had just published a new novel called The Lawgiver—a comic epistolary novel, no less, concerning the making of a movie about the life of Moses in which Wouk himself appears as a character. As Lewis wrote, “Wouk adapts the form to the modern world of instant messaging, faxes, and Skype, and pulls it off successfully—a startling achievement by an author who was born two years before the United States entered World War I.”
Wouk, who died Friday just two weeks shy of his 104th birthday, was extraordinary not only for his age, his durability, and the freshness of his ageless mind, but for his career as a popular novelist determined to explore themes of the deepest seriousness with all their moral complexities for a mass-market audience.
It was, I have to say, the very reason his work came in for scornful or dismissive treatment in the pages of COMMENTARY. The New York literary highbrows may have delighted in the frivolities of Hollywood and Tin Pan Alley, but they stood at the gates with buckshot at the ready against the philistine hordes of popular culture when the barbarians sought venture onto the turf of the Great Novel or the Great Play. Wouk’s breakthrough work, The Caine Mutiny, sold millions and was made into a successful movie and a smash-hit play, but in these pages it was found wanting as a seafaring tale next to Herman Melville—which is rather an impossible standard to which to hold a book that deserved and deserves to be measured on its own merits.
And when Wouk was garlanded by the middlebrows of the news magazines and the Book of the Month Club audience with the publication of his most ambitious novel, 1955’s Marjorie Morningstar, which was also an enormous bestseller, this meant war. The book came under withering assault from a 26-year-old whippersnapper named Norman Podhoretz for its “indigestible prose.”

















