Election Ad in Michigan Linking Israel Aid to Grocery Costs Draws Accusations of Antisemitism

An election advertisement in the American state of Michigan has drawn wide controversy for linking U.S. military aid to Israel with rising living costs. The ad supports Democratic Senate candidate Abdul Rahman al-Sayed, known as “Abdul El-Sayed.” Some critics have called it antisemitic, while others have defended it as a critique of U.S. spending priorities.

The advertisement was produced by the political action committee Rebellion PAC. It shows a woman in a grocery store asking a man, who plays her partner, to put a carton of eggs back on the shelf. When he asks whether their children no longer like eggs, she replies: “No, they love eggs, but we have to keep those seven dollars aside to kill Palestinians.”

The dialogue then turns to U.S. aid to Israel. The man asks, “Don’t we give Israel four billion dollars a year?” The woman answers that the figure has become 26 billion dollars, which the advertisement says equals about 161 dollars for every American. According to Sada News’ translation, the ad then links this spending to funding the bombing of Gaza.

Abdul El-Sayed does not appear in the grocery store scene, which is performed by two actors. His support appears within the advertisement’s electoral message. His campaign has confirmed that the ad is not connected to the campaign or to the candidate in any way, and it stressed that statements issued in the campaign’s name are limited to him and his electoral team.

The advertisement comes amid a broader debate over the size of U.S. military aid to Israel and over government spending priorities. Discussions about the cost of living, healthcare, and domestic needs continue alongside that debate. Journalists and activists defended the ad as raising questions about sending American money to foreign military aid rather than to domestic needs.

Politicians and organizations supportive of Israel criticized the ad as antisemitic, arguing that it ties American economic problems to Israel and to Jews. Jewish researcher Saul Sadka said the ad reflects a normalization of antisemitic rhetoric within the American Democratic Party. He argued that linking Jews to wars, inflation, rising food prices, and the lack of healthcare reproduces antisemitic stereotypes. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) called the ad bigoted and lacking in facts. Jonathan Greenblatt, head of the Anti-Defamation League, said it presents Israel as a “scapegoat” for economic problems. Careful wording matters when a campaign message makes claims about a nation and a people, and the accountability for those words rests with those who choose them (Luke 12:48).

The dispute reflects a disagreement over where criticism of U.S. aid to Israel ends. Defenders of the advertisement see it as raising a legitimate debate about public spending priorities. Its critics argue that its wording goes beyond criticizing policies and promotes antisemitic stereotypes.

Source: Read the original report (translated from Arabic)