On April 24, 2026, a new political scandal erupted around the Venice Biennale: the international jury of the 61st contemporary art exhibition announced that it would not consider Russia and Israel among the contenders for the main awards — the ‘Golden Lion’ and the ‘Silver Lion.’ However, the national pavilions of both countries remain in the exhibition program, which is scheduled to open on May 9, 2026.
Formally, the jury’s decision is explained by a reference to the International Criminal Court and accusations related to the leaders of these states.
In practice, however, it is about a much broader story: a major art venue has once again found itself at the center of a debate about war, responsibility, boycott, freedom of art, and the boundaries of political pressure.
For the Israeli audience, this topic is especially sensitive. Israel, in this case, has been placed in the same category as Russia — a country waging a full-scale war against Ukraine and using culture as part of its foreign policy presence.
Such proximity in itself raises questions: where is the line between a legal formula, a political gesture, and a moral substitution?
What the Venice Biennale decided
The jury of the Venice Biennale stated that it would refrain from considering countries whose leaders, according to international reports, are involved in cases at the International Criminal Court. As a result, Russia and Israel are effectively removed from the competition for key awards.
Importantly: this does not mean the exclusion of pavilions from the exhibition.
Russia and Israel will be able to present their projects, and viewers will be able to see them, but the jury will not consider these works as potential laureates of the main prizes. Thus, the biennale chose an intermediate model: not to prohibit participation, but to limit symbolic recognition.
Why this looks like a compromise
The biennale organizers emphasize that the international jury acts autonomously and independently determines the laureates. The exhibition’s press service separately noted that the organization does not interfere in the jury’s decisions and simultaneously does not assume the right to prohibit the participation of national pavilions of recognized states.
This is where the main conflict arises.
On one hand, the biennale tries to maintain its status as an open international platform. On the other — the jury effectively introduces a politico-ethical filter that influences the final hierarchy of the exhibition. The pavilions remain, but full participation in the race for prestigious awards is no longer possible.
For art, this is not a technical detail. The ‘Golden Lion’ of the Venice Biennale is not just an award, but a sign of global recognition. Exclusion from the awards does not close the pavilion’s doors but changes the country’s status within the event.
Russia, Israel, and the different nature of accusations
In the Ukrainian and European context, the main focus is now primarily on the Russian pavilion. After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Moscow’s participation in major cultural events has been perceived not as ‘ordinary culture,’ but as a matter of political normalization of a regime responsible for war, city destruction, strikes on civilian infrastructure, and the destruction of Ukrainian cultural heritage.
Russia did not participate in the 2024 exhibition, and its return in 2026 caused a sharp reaction from the European Union, Ukraine, the Baltic countries, Finland, and a large number of cultural figures. Associated Press reports that the EU has already announced a reduction of a 2 million euro grant for the Venice Biennale due to the return of the Russian pavilion.
With Israel, the situation is different but no less politicized. The jury’s decision is related to international criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza and the ICC warrant against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. However, for Israeli society, this framing of the issue is perceived as especially painful: Israel is waging a war following the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, and the threat from Iran, Hezbollah, and other proxy groups remains part of the country’s real security.
Why the comparison of Israel and Russia causes irritation
For many in Israel and the Jewish diaspora, the very linkage of ‘Russia and Israel’ in one decision seems problematic. Russia is an aggressor in the war against Ukraine. Israel, no matter how intense the international dispute around its actions in Gaza, views its war as a fight against terrorist infrastructure following the largest attack on Jews since the Holocaust.
This does not negate debates about rights, humanitarian consequences, and the responsibility of political leadership.
But the mechanical unification of the two countries in one formula creates a sense of moral equivalence, which in itself becomes a political statement. That is why the jury’s decision will be discussed not only in cultural circles but also in diplomatic, Jewish, Ukrainian, and Israeli contexts.
In this sense, Nikk.Agency — Israel News | Nikk.Agency draws attention to a key detail: the biennale does not just evaluate art but effectively participates in a global debate about whom international institutions consider an acceptable interlocutor, who is a problematic participant, and who is a symbol of an unacceptable return to normalcy.
International reaction: pressure on the biennale intensifies
The European Union hit funding
The most serious practical step so far is related specifically to Russia. The European Commission sharply condemned the decision to allow the Russian pavilion and announced a reduction of a 2 million euro grant, calculated over a three-year period. According to AP, the biennale has 30 days to justify its position on Russia’s participation.
This is an important signal: the dispute has gone beyond cultural discussion.
Whereas previously it was about letters, statements, and public pressure, now the issue has moved into the realm of money, contracts, and institutional responsibility. The European Union is effectively saying: if the venue gives a stage to Russian state presence, it cannot expect the previous level of European support.
Latvia, Finland, Ukraine, and artist protests
Latvia announced a boycott of the biennale’s opening on May 9, Finland is limiting its participation format while maintaining the Russian pavilion, and the heads of the ministries of culture and foreign affairs of 22 countries opposed Russia’s return to the exhibition. European and Ukrainian representatives associate this not with censorship, but with the impossibility of pretending that the Russian state remains an ordinary cultural participant after the war against Ukraine.
Ukraine also appealed to Italy not to issue visas to Russian participants associated with the pavilion. According to Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha, Kyiv has already imposed sanctions on individuals involved in organizing Russia’s participation and expects corresponding decisions from the host country.
Separate pressure comes from artists. More than 70 participants appealed to the biennale leadership with a protest against the participation of Israel, Russia, and the USA. This shows that within the artistic community there is no unified line: some demand exclusions and boycotts, others believe that art should remain a space for dialogue even in the most difficult periods.
How organizers and Italy respond
The Venice Biennale insists that it has not violated the rules and does not have the authority to prohibit the participation of a country recognized by the Italian Republic. Organizers also point out that the Russian pavilion in the Giardini gardens historically belongs to Russia, and for participation, Moscow had to notify the foundation of its intention to open the exhibition.
In Italy, the reaction is also mixed.
Italy’s Minister of Culture Alessandro Giuli reportedly distanced himself from visiting the Central Pavilion and chose a trip to Lviv — a symbolic gesture towards Ukraine. At the same time, Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini criticized Brussels’ pressure, and Veneto region President Alberto Stefani called the EU’s actions unacceptable, arguing that art should create a space for cultural dialogue.
Russia, as usual, presented the situation as an attack by the West on culture. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called the possible funding cut a ‘step back’ and accused the West of ‘anti-culture.’ For Moscow, this is a convenient framework: instead of talking about the war against Ukraine — a conversation about allegedly oppressed culture.
But this is precisely part of the problem. The Russian state has been using cultural platforms as soft power for years, and then demands to separate art from politics at the moment when politics becomes inconvenient.
What this means for Israel
For Israel, the Venice Biennale jury’s decision is an unpleasant signal. It shows that international cultural institutions are increasingly moving from universal artistic criteria to political restrictions, and these restrictions can be applied in very broad and controversial contexts.
The Israeli pavilion remains at the exhibition. This is important.
But exclusion from the competition for awards means that even with formal presence, the country faces a symbolic boycott. This model may be repeated at other international venues: not a complete ban, not direct exclusion, but a lowering of status through decisions by juries, curators, funds, and partners.
For Ukraine, the main issue is to prevent the normalization of Russian presence. For Israel — not to allow the war against terrorist organizations to be automatically translated into the same moral category as Russia’s aggressive war against Ukraine.
It is at this crossroads that the current Venice Biennale finds itself.
Formally, it is an exhibition of contemporary art. In essence — a mirror of international politics in 2026, where pavilions, awards, grants, and boycotts have become the language of diplomacy.