From Activism To Apologia.
There is a line between activism and something far darker. When speech stops being protest and starts becoming praise for bloodshed, we are no longer talking about dissent. We are talking about moral collapse.
That line was obliterated when Gen Z influencer Guy Christensen, a pro-Palestinian commentator with millions of followers, publicly reversed his initial condemnation of a deadly shooting targeting Israeli embassy staffers. After first saying he did not support the slaughter of civilians, he later told followers the alleged gunman “isn’t a terrorist” but a “resistance fighter.”
That pivot matters. Words matter. When someone with a massive platform reframes murder as resistance, it doesn’t just reflect outrage. It fuels it.
The Slippery Language Of “Genocide” And “War Crimes”
The modern propaganda playbook relies on repetition. Call it “genocide” enough times, and it becomes “truth” in the algorithm. Label diplomats as “war criminals,” and suddenly violence against them feels justified to unstable minds.
Israel’s war in Gaza began after the October 7 massacre carried out by Hamas. Yet in certain online echo chambers, that context vanishes. The atrocities that triggered the war are blurred or excused, while every Israeli action is packaged as premeditated extermination.
Throw around phrases like “genocide machine” and “war criminal,” and you create a moral permission structure. Once that structure is in place, the leap from accusation to justification becomes terrifyingly small.
Switching Blame, Erasing Victims
The victims in the Washington shooting were Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, a young couple attending an event hosted by the American Jewish Committee. They were not combatants. They were not soldiers. They were not pulling triggers in Gaza.
Yet in the influencer’s rhetoric, they became symbols. Not people, but “Zionists.” Not victims, but allegedly complicit actors in a global crime.
This is how blame gets switched. The dead are put on trial. The shooter is rebranded as a resistor. The conversation pivots from “Why were they killed?” to “What did they represent?”
That moral inversion is the most dangerous part of ugly speech. It conditions audiences to see violence as inevitable, even righteous.
Activist Or Agent Provocateur?
Is this simply reckless activism? Or something more cynical?
When an influencer compares condemning a shooting to criticizing Luke Skywalker for blowing up the Death Star, the message is clear: violence is mythologized. Real-world murder is wrapped in cinematic heroism. It is no longer about policy or humanitarian concern. It becomes narrative warfare.
Some followers even floated “false flag” conspiracies online, suggesting the attack was staged to discredit pro-Palestinian activism. That reflex to deny or redirect responsibility mirrors the ugliest corners of internet radicalization. Facts are secondary. The cause is everything.
Whether Christensen is a true believer or simply addicted to outrage-driven engagement, the result is the same. Millions hear a message that softens the moral horror of killing civilians tied to Israel.
The Free Speech Shield And Its Limits
Free speech protects the right to criticize governments, including Israel and the United States. It protects harsh rhetoric. It even protects offensive ideas.
What it does not do is erase consequences. Platforms may remove content. Universities may investigate conduct. Audiences may recoil.
There is a difference between advocating for Palestinian rights and endorsing the killing of diplomats. When that difference is blurred, the entire movement risks being defined by its most extreme voices.
The Cultural Cost Of Applauding Violence
The broader cost is cultural. If murder becomes “resistance” depending on the flag involved, we are in a moral free fall. If accusations of genocide are wielded casually to justify any retaliation, we are playing with rhetorical dynamite.
Criticize policy. Protest war. Demand accountability. But do not sanitize bullets with hashtags.
Because once violence is applauded for one side, it can be applauded for any side.
Bottom Line
Anti-Israel rhetoric crosses into something toxic when it excuses or glorifies murder. Calling diplomats “war criminals” and shooters “resistance fighters” is not brave dissent. It is a dangerous distortion that flips victims into villains and violence into virtue. In an age of viral influence, that distortion spreads fast—and its consequences are real.
Criticize Israel all you want. Protest American foreign policy. Advocate for Palestinians. That’s your right. But once you excuse murder, label victims as deserving targets, and dress violence up as resistance, you’ve abandoned activism for something far more dangerous. Ugly speech doesn’t liberate anyone. It just clears the moral ground for the next tragedy.
We are so screwed.
— Steve
