Flemish Parliament member Gwendolyn Rutten has triggered criticism following comments regarding the Eurovision Song Contest 2026 and the role of the Flemish public broadcaster VRT, which were condemned for reproducing antisemitic tropes.
Rutten argued that the VRT should not broadcast the contest due to Israel’s participation and aligned herself with calls for a cultural boycott. She stated that Israel should be “hit where it hurts: in the pocket”, referring to reduced viewership, televoting participation, and sponsorship exposure linked to the festival’s main sponsor, Moroccanoil.
She also referenced reported unease among VRT trade unions, suggesting they might engage in forms of protest including “civil disobedience”, and stated that “it would be a good day on which to pull the plug”, expressing support for possible strike action during the broadcast.
Her remarks have been criticised in political and media circles, particularly for their framing of boycott strategies and their implications for the neutrality of public broadcasting. Critics argue that calls for industrial action in this context risk politicising a cultural event produced and transmitted as part of a public service mandate.
A particularly strong reaction came from the Comité de Coordination des Organisations Juives de Belgique (CCOJB) and the Forum der Joodse Organisaties (FJO), which jointly expressed their “vivid disapproval” of Rutten’s statements, particularly her references that appeared to amalgamate Jews with Israel in the context of financial influence. The organisations warned that her remarks risk reinforcing persistent and dangerous stereotypes associating Jews with forms of economic power or control.
In their statement, the CCOJB and FJO highlighted that Rutten’s reference to an alleged influence linked to a supposed Israeli company—which in reality is a private American company—owned by individuals of Jewish faith, echoes long-standing antisemitic tropes. They stressed that such insinuations contribute to the normalisation of narratives historically used to fuel antisemitism, particularly those suggesting collective Jewish financial power or control.
Both organisations underlined that, in the current context of rising antisemitism across Europe and beyond, such rhetoric is “particularly concerning” and unacceptable in public discourse. They further stressed that responsible political communication must be based on verified facts and must avoid any framing that could inadvertently perpetuate discrimination or hatred.
The CCOJB and FJO also emphasised the broader responsibility of political actors in their public language, noting that elected representatives carry particular weight in shaping societal perceptions. They additionally called on media outlets to ensure appropriate editorial oversight when addressing such sensitive issues.
Rutten maintains that her intervention is intended as a political statement concerning accountability and the role of public institutions in relation to international conflicts. She argues that broadcasters and cultural institutions should be able to reflect ethical concerns expressed by segments of the public and their staff.
