- May 12, 2026
- 3:17 pm
- World News
Martin Green’s reaction: brief, dry, and with obvious irritation
Eurovision Song Contest director Martin Green responded to The New York Times investigation into possible Israeli influence on the audience voting in 2025. His response sounded not like an attempt to thoroughly analyze the accusations, but rather as a desire to quickly defuse the scandal.
“I have nothing to say, I read it quickly, much of it is paraphrasing… It seems like a whole article about who didn’t win the Eurovision Song Contest,” Green stated during a press conference on May 11, 2026.
The phrase was telling. The contest director essentially indicated that he does not see the NYT publication as a sensation that changes the official picture. But the sharpness of the response suggests otherwise: the topic touched the organizers because the issue is no longer just about Israel, Ukraine, or a specific result. It’s about trust in the audience voting system itself.
Why the NYT investigation became so loud
The controversy was sparked by data on audience voting in 2025. According to the published table, Israel was in first place with 33.34%, or 47,570 votes. Ukraine was in second place with 6.74%, or 9,620 votes.
The difference is too noticeable to be perceived as ordinary statistics. Israel received almost five times more votes than Ukraine, even though the Ukrainian theme in Europe remains strong, emotional, and politically significant.
The main nuance is that one viewer could vote for a participant up to 20 times. This rule became the weak point of the system. If the audience simply sympathizes with an artist, that’s one story. But if a certain group of people votes in an organized manner the maximum number of times, the result starts to look less like pure ‘will of the viewers’ and more like the outcome of mobilization.
Where support ends and influence begins
In this story, Israel found itself at the center of not only a musical but also a political conflict. After wars, protests, discussions about boycotts, and constant attempts to turn the country’s participation into an international dispute, every Israeli performance at Eurovision is perceived as more than just a stage number.
For Israel’s supporters, voting could be a gesture of solidarity. For critics, it is an example of how the state, diplomatic structures, media campaigns, and public organizations can amplify the result through mass appeals.
This is where the NYT investigation hit the nerve of the contest. Journalists claimed that the Israeli campaign around Eurovision was broader than it seemed and that Israel used the contest as a platform for soft power. According to their version, it was not just about fan support but also about systematic work to promote the Israeli participant.
In the middle of this discussion, NANews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency sees an important question for the Israeli audience: when a country is under constant political pressure, any cultural victory becomes more than just culture. But precisely because of this, such victories attract more attention, suspicion, and criticism.
What the Eurovision director’s response means
Martin Green’s comment can be read on two levels. On one hand, he defends the contest from accusations that the organizers underestimated the scale of external campaigns’ influence. On the other hand, his words do not remove the main question: how protected is audience voting from organized political mobilization?
When Green says the publication resembles an article about ‘who didn’t win,’ he effectively shifts the conversation to the realm of the losers’ dissatisfaction. This is a convenient position for the organizers. It allows them not to acknowledge a systemic problem and simultaneously avoid direct conflict with Israel.
But the numbers remain numbers. Israel — 33.34%. Ukraine — 6.74%. With a limit of 20 votes per viewer, such a gap inevitably raises questions. Even if there were no technical violations, the question of perception fairness remains: viewers see ‘people’s voting,’ but in reality, they get a result that can be sharply amplified by a well-organized campaign.
Why this is important right now
After the scandal, the vote limit was reduced to 10. This looks like an acknowledgment that the previous model was too vulnerable. Yes, the organizers may disagree with the NYT’s wording. Yes, they may consider part of the material to be a paraphrasing of already known theses. But the change in rules shows that the problem did exist.
For Israel, this story is dual. On one hand, the high result proved that the country has strong support beyond its borders. On the other hand, precisely because of this result, Israel once again found itself under a magnifying glass.
For Ukraine, second place in such a table is also important. It shows that the Ukrainian theme retains a high response, but even strong European sympathy can yield to a more organized and technically active voting campaign.
Eurovision can no longer hide behind the word ‘music’
Eurovision has long tried to maintain the image of a contest of songs, emotions, and cultural exchange. But reality has changed. Today, voting in such a contest is connected with war, diplomacy, boycotts, diasporas, state image, and social networks.
Martin Green’s reaction did not close the topic. Rather, it showed that the organizers understand the sensitivity of the moment but do not want to publicly acknowledge its political depth.
The story with Israel and Ukraine in the 2025 audience voting became an example of a new era of Eurovision. It’s not just the song that wins. It’s the ability of a country to explain itself, mobilize supporters, and turn three minutes on stage into an international signal.
That’s why the phrase ‘much of it is paraphrasing’ sounds not like a final point but as an attempt to avoid an uncomfortable conversation. Because the question has already been raised: if one viewer can vote many times, and state campaigns can direct audience emotions, where does the contest end and politics begin?