Genocidal Glee
It is a sick world where genocidal glee is rebranded as solidarity with the underdog.
The screenshots below show two things happening at once:
First, a private email sent by Glenn Greenwald, where he tells a Jewish recipient to “crawl out of your Sabbath hole” and watch Israeli cities being hit by Iranian missiles, followed by a link and the word “Enjoy.”
Second, his public follow up, where he frames himself as the victim of smears, denies wrongdoing, and then states plainly, “I think it’s good for the world that Israel is feeling retaliatory strikes for the wars they started.”
All the talk about innocent civilians, all the moral posturing, all the hours spent pretending this is about universal principles and human suffering, all of it collapses the second Israelis are the ones under fire. Then the mask slips, and what comes out is the truth. They never cared about innocent civilians in any consistent or serious way. They cared about using civilian suffering as a political weapon against Israel. That is a very different thing, and people should stop pretending otherwise.
Defenders of Israel spend an enormous amount of time explaining basic realities that should not need to be explained to honest people. We explain why casualty figures coming out of the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health cannot simply be treated as clean, neutral civilian death tolls, especially when Hamas has every incentive to inflate, manipulate, and obscure the distinction between civilians and combatants. We explain that Hamas embeds itself in civilian areas, stores weapons in homes, schools, and mosques, launches attacks from within populated neighborhoods, and then relies on the resulting images for propaganda. We explain that Hamas built an entire terror infrastructure under Gaza while leaving its own civilians exposed above ground, because civilian vulnerability is useful to them. We explain all of this for one reason. Because if Israel were deliberately targeting innocent civilians, that would be evil, and the truth would matter.
That is what makes comments like Glenn’s so revealing. He’s not arguing that civilian suffering is tragic wherever it occurs. He’s arguing that Israeli civilians being targeted by ballistic missiles is somehow morally satisfying because he has accepted the lie that they are collectively guilty. He wants the category of civilian to apply when it can be used against Israel, and he wants it to disappear when Israelis are the ones bleeding.
And once you see that, a lot of other things come into focus. It explains why so many of these people become extremely skeptical and forensic when Israeli actions are under discussion, but suddenly become emotionless and vindictive when Israelis are murdered. It explains why every dead Gazan child is treated as a moral indictment of the Jewish people, while dead Israeli children are treated as background noise, an unfortunate detail, or in many cases a justified consequence. It explains why they spend months lecturing the world about “dehumanization” and then casually speak about Israeli families as though they are legitimate instruments of collective punishment.
You can see this everywhere if you open your eyes. Look at Arabic media comment sections after missile strikes on Israeli neighborhoods. Look at the replies on X whenever Israeli homes are hit, whenever civilians are wounded, whenever parents are filmed carrying terrified children into bomb shelters. The joy is often open, the language is genocidal and the delight is unmistakable. And what is especially telling is how often Western activists, commentators, and supposed dissidents end up converging with that same moral logic, even when they dress it up in more respectable language. They may not all sound the same stylistically, but the underlying position is identical. Israeli suffering is deserved. Israeli fear is deserved. Israeli death is deserved.
That is why it is so grotesque to watch people like Glenn treated as serious moral voices. Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and other Grifters bring these people on as though they are offering insight, as though this is some brave heterodox critique of power, when what they are really doing is laundering malice through the language of antiwar concern. There is nothing profound about a person who can watch innocent Jews run to bomb shelters and decide that this is good for the world. There is nothing courageous about rationalizing missile attacks on civilian areas because the victims are Israeli. That is moral rot pure and simple and it would be recognized instantly as moral rot in any other context. The fact that it gets treated as thoughtful commentary here tells you a great deal about the standards Israel is subjected to and the standards Jews are expected to endure.
You will never find mainstream Israeli voices reacting to civilian deaths in Gaza with this kind of gleeful bloodlust. You will find arguments about military necessity. You will find people defending the war as forced, defensive, and tragically necessary. You will find people arguing that Hamas made this war inevitable and that Israel has a duty to destroy the terror infrastructure threatening its citizens. You will find anger, grief, and hard arguments about the realities of urban warfare. What you will never find in normal Israeli public discourse is some mainstream culture of ecstatic celebration over dead Arab children. That distinction matters because one side is arguing over how to fight an enemy embedded among civilians, and the other side keeps revealing that its real emotional investment lies in watching Jews suffer.
There is also something else here that should be said plainly. People who experience visible pleasure at the murder of innocent civilians are sick people. People who see footage of ballistic missiles slamming into residential areas and respond with satisfaction have something broken in them at a moral level. And when that response is specifically directed at Jews, when the victims are Israeli families and the reaction is joy, vindication, or smug approval, then the word antisemitism isn’t some overheated accusation. It’s an accurate description of what is in front of you.
The ugliest part is how many of these people still imagine themselves as the humane side. They think they are speaking for justice. They think they are standing with the oppressed. They think repeating the language of human rights cleanses them of what they are plainly endorsing. It does not. A person who cheers missile strikes on civilian neighborhoods because the civilians are Israeli has no moral high ground. A person who says this is “good for the world” has forfeited the right to be treated as some principled humanitarian critic. He is telling you, in his own words, that his compassion has boundaries, and those boundaries are drawn around Jews.
That is the reality people need to face. A great deal of what passes for concern over Gaza in elite and online discourse is not rooted in a consistent ethic of civilian protection. It is rooted in hostility toward Israel so deep that even the murder of Israeli children can be reframed as justice.
It is a sick world where people who justify missiles falling on Israeli homes are presented as brave truth-tellers while Israelis defending their families are treated as moral monsters. It is a sick world where genocidal glee gets rebranded as solidarity with the underdog. And it is a sick world where people still expect Jews to sit quietly and accept lectures on humanity from people who can barely contain their excitement when Jewish children are in the blast zone.
I’ll just leave this here for posterity:
