Kraft Super Bowl Ad Triggers Jewish Debate Over How to Fight Antisemitism

The Blue Square Alliance Against Hate’s Super Bowl advertisement aimed at combating antisemitism has instead triggered a sharp debate within the American Jewish community over whether the campaign reflects the realities Jews face today and whether it represents an effective use of Jewish philanthropy.

The ad, titled “Sticky Note,” aired during the Super Bowl and portrays a Jewish high school student being harassed by classmates, who place a sticker reading “dirty Jew” on his backpack. A Black classmate intervenes, covering the note with a blue square and offering support. On-screen text states that two in three Jewish teens have experienced antisemitism, urging viewers to share a blue square emoji to show solidarity.

The commercial is part of a $15 million media campaign funded by New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft’s organization, formerly known as the Foundation to Combat Antisemitism and now operating as the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate. With more than 100 million viewers expected, the ad immediately drew widespread attention, and backlash from prominent Jewish commentators.

Bret Stephens, speaking at a “State of World Jewry” address in New York, questioned the broader strategy behind such efforts. “What we call the fight against antisemitism, which consumes tens of millions of dollars every year in Jewish philanthropy and has become an organizing principle across Jewish organizations, is a well-meaning, but mostly wasted effort,” he said.

Others argued that the ad reinforces a narrative of Jewish weakness and fails to address the sources of antisemitism many Jewish students encounter today. Shabbos Kestenbaum, a Harvard alumnus who emerged as a leading conservative Jewish voice after October 7, wrote that spending millions on public-awareness campaigns reflects misplaced priorities. “American Jews: If you are spending millions to ‘fight antisemitism’ instead of building Jewish life, you are both out of touch with the needs of Gen Z Jews and have not learned the lessons of post-October 7th Jewry,” he wrote. “Fund Jewish Day Schools, not Super Bowl ads.”

Tablet Magazine columnist Liel Leibovitz also criticized the campaign’s message, arguing that it projects victimhood rather than resilience. He questioned why Jewish organizations continue to emphasize vulnerability rather than strength and pride at a moment when many Jews feel under siege.

Kraft has said the ad is intended to “create a sense of empathy and understanding and get people to stand up,” particularly among Americans who are disengaged from the issue of antisemitism.

Blue Square Alliance president Adam Katz pushed back against the criticism, stressing that the campaign was never intended to resonate primarily with Jews. Speaking to Jewish Insider, Katz said the Super Bowl provided a rare opportunity to reach Americans who are largely disengaged from the issue of antisemitism. “We’re very focused on this audience that’s lacking awareness, empathy and motivation to act,” he said. “We’re talking about over 100 million Americans classified as unengaged on this topic who just don’t see antisemitism as a significant problem.”

Katz said the ad was shaped by extensive research and testing, including focus groups made up largely of non-Jewish, racially diverse Gen Zers and millennials. According to Katz, the campaign was refined repeatedly to ensure it raised awareness and encouraged viewers to see themselves as potential allies. “Gen Z is three times more likely to witness antisemitism but twice as likely to say it’s not a problem,” he said. “How do we reach that audience and give them a visible example of allyship?”

The Anti-Defamation League’s Center for Antisemitism Research also examined the ad’s impact following the backlash. In a randomized controlled experiment conducted between February 5 and 6, roughly 1,000 viewers were shown the commercial and compared with a control group that viewed an unrelated ad. According to the ADL, those who saw the antisemitism ad were more likely to say they viewed antisemitism as a serious problem, felt motivated to intervene when encountering antisemitic remarks, and believed they could play a role in addressing the issue.