Podcast Summary: The Commentary Magazine Podcast – "Kraft Blue It"
Date: February 9, 2026
Participants:

• Jon Podhoretz (Host, Editor)
• Abe Greenwald (Executive Editor)
• Seth Mandel (Senior Editor)
• Eliana Johnson (Washington Free Beacon Editor)
• Christine Rosen (Columnist)

Episode Overview

This episode dives deep into the controversy surrounding Robert Kraft’s "Stand Up to Jewish Hate" Blue Square Initiative ad, which aired during the Super Bowl. The panel discusses why the ad sparked such negative reactions from the Jewish community, explores the implications of focusing on "allyship" and universal "hate" rather than specifically on antisemitism, and critiques the broader culture of performative activism. The panel also touches on the Super Bowl halftime show and notable Super Bowl ads, contrasting them to the main controversy.

Main Discussion: Robert Kraft’s Blue Square Ad

Background and Synopsis ([00:51]–[03:28])

• Jon Podhoretz introduces the topic, noting widespread confusion and disappointment with the Super Bowl ad among Jews.
• The ad: A Jewish kid is bullied at school; a Black student puts a blue sticky note over "dirty Jew" written on his locker, saying "Don’t believe that," and the campaign logo appears.
• The intended call to action is for viewers to post a blue square on Instagram to express solidarity against antisemitism.

“I don’t know anybody...that was not puzzled, offended, or grossed out or made angry by this ad.” — Jon Podhoretz [03:36]

Why Did the Ad Fail? ([03:50]–[07:50])

1. Lack of Agency for Jews

• Abe: “It shows the kid with no ability to defend himself at all...he just has to wait for someone to rescue him. That is not an appropriate message.” [04:35]
• Christine: The bullying depicted is outdated; modern antisemitism is often online, ambient, and subtle, not overt like in the ad. The victim has no agency. [05:10]

2. Out-of-Touch Imagery and Misplaced Symbolism

• The ad’s choice to have a Black peer rescue the Jewish child is “a poor reflection of reality,” especially post-October 7, when many Jewish observers felt DEI institutions turned against Jews. [05:35]
• Eliana: "Most Jews, including the ADL, realized after October 7, DEI was not actually for the Jews." [05:35]
• Bret Stephens (cited): Jews should fight antisemitism by being more Jewish, not by appealing for outside validation. [07:21]

3. Mismatch With Contemporary Antisemitic Experiences

• Seth points out that current antisemitism is public and proud, not anonymous. The main issue is institutional acceptance of antisemitism, not individual acts of bullying. [11:29]
• Christine, John: An accurate ad would depict ambiguous (or overt) anti-Jewish statements disguised as anti-Zionism, or hostile campus events, not schoolyard bullying. [10:26, 32:06]

4. Performative and Solipsistic Activism

• The Blue Square action calls to mind the “black square” for BLM—a gesture many saw as empty performance.

“It is a solipsistic effort to gain market share for your organization to combat antisemitism as opposed to the ADL or other organizations. That’s actually what’s going on in my view, sub rosa.” — Jon Podhoretz [14:14]

5. Universalizing "Hate" Waters Down the Message

• The campaign changed its language from antisemitism to “hate,” which the hosts find unforgivable.
• Universalizing hate is seen as “deeply offensive...and a shonda.” [16:32]

6. Faulty & Manipulative Social Science

• Podhoretz and panel ridicule campaign claims of effectiveness based on last-minute focus groups.
• They find the "allyship" goal misguided and see focus group justification as contrived to back up pre-existing plans.

“Allyship is a bull--- word...It never goes the other way, because that’s not what the doctrine is. The allyship is leftists saying, you give us money to be leftists. And you know what the leftist cause is? It’s not Zionism.” — Jon Podhoretz [24:03]

The Bigger Picture: How To Fight Antisemitism ([41:38]–[46:55])

• The panel argues that Jewish security should be about civil rights enforcement and deterrence, not seeking “allyship” from outside groups:
  • Jews should pursue direct action (e.g., legal recourse, self-defense) rather than feel dependent or feeble.
  • The ad’s depiction of Jews as weak and in need of rescue is counterproductive to Jewish dignity and actual safety.

“We don’t care about standing up to hate. This is not about standing up to hate. It’s about standing up to people who want to destroy the Jewish community…” — Jon Podhoretz [39:44]

• Seth argues that what Jews want is normalcy and fair enforcement of the law—not “special protection” or sympathy. [41:38]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Jon Podhoretz: “You know who [did this]? Dumb nonprofit Jews who work in the nonprofit Jewish community, all of whom are focused on dumb horse performative…” [15:35]
• Christine Rosen: “If it was a more accurate ad, the sticky note wouldn’t have said dirty Jew. It would have said stop the genocide.” [32:06]
• Abe Greenwald: “To me it sort of looks like like a special episode of Happy Days. You know, like Fonzie helps out the Jewish boomer.” [31:20]
• Seth Mandela: “Non Jews like it, Jews hate it. This is the ongoing, you know, Dar Horn people love dead Jews concept, right?...Everybody appreciates the weak Jew.” [21:40]

Brief Digressions

Super Bowl Ads and Entertainment

• Commentary on Ring cameras, AI ad proliferation, and chilling implications of advanced tech in commercials. [34:44–36:17]
• Light banter about fashion, pet insurance, and movie recommendations.
• Christine Rosen: “As grateful as I am not to see a woman my age spinning around a stripper pole this year...” — on the Super Bowl halftime show [51:04]

Halftime Show Discussion ([51:04]–[59:52])

• Mixed reactions toward the Bad Bunny performance and its political undertones.
• Eliana Johnson frustrated about the show’s use of non-English and the pan-Latin American focus, finding it out of touch for an American event. [56:08]

Suggested Solutions & Final Thoughts

• The group overwhelmingly agrees that the better way to address antisemitism is:

  • Through robust self-defense and asserting legal rights (not performative activism).
  • Podhoretz: On deterrence “If the idea is Jews...are not going to put up with being treated this way...have a lot of lawyers and...can sue people...” [48:07]
  • Christine (humorous alternative): “The yeshiva student with the gun...New square, not blue square.” [50:30]

• The closing consensus: Kraft’s ad may win non-Jewish sympathy but fails the needs and experiences of Jews today—by rendering them passive and by evading the deeper problems of contemporary antisemitism.

Key Timestamps for Reference

• [00:51]–[03:28]—Synopsis of the ad and initial reactions
• [04:00]–[11:12]—Critiques: lack of agency, outdated depiction of harassment, and performative activism
• [13:14]–[16:32]—The issue of universalizing hate and responding with allyship
• [23:31]–[24:14]—How the campaign claims it tested the ad (and why hosts don’t trust the data)
• [31:20]–[33:00]—On anachronism and missing the reality of anti-Zionism
• [41:38]–[46:55]—What response to antisemitism should look like (civil rights, deterrence)
• [51:04]–[59:52]—Halftime show and Super Bowl ad commentary

Tone & Language:
The tone is acerbic, exasperated, deeply knowledgeable, and frequently sarcastic. The panel spar freely and use strong language to express frustration with superficial activism and shallow focus-grouped solutions to existential issues.

Summary for New Listeners:
This episode unpacks why the Blue Square Initiative’s high-profile Super Bowl ad struck a raw, negative nerve in the Jewish community. The hosts argue that, contrary to its aim, the ad perpetuates a false sense of Jewish fragility and seeks empty gestures from outsiders rather than encouraging self-assertion and genuine communal solidarity. Overall, the panel insists that fighting antisemitism should be about standing up for civil rights, rejecting performative “allyship,” and not diluting the specificity of Jewish concerns in pursuit of broad, bland, and ultimately ineffective messaging.