this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2026
268 points (90.1% liked)
Memes
56564 readers
325 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
What am I missing about the comments here? It's a satirical cartoon, so it's not meant to be taken as these labels are what the author would apply to each group.
I read it as highlighting the hypocrisy of how Ukraine fighting Russia is self defence but Palestine fighting Israel is seen as terrorism.
Is this a controversial take?
Is this a controversial take?
In some countries like the UK and Germany not only is this a controversial take, it is an illegal take
Right, I assumed it was also referencing this.
Wait is it actually illegal?? How does it work? Making a post in support of Palestine will get you in court?
That is the correct reading of it, yes. But I think at least most of the comments so far recognize this? And most of them so far seem to be in agreement with the artist of the cartoon that it is an absurd double standard, the only one that seems to be an obvious exception is the one who was shocked that it was getting upvotes. But I may be seeing a different set of comments than what you are because of how federation works, so like I am blissfully unaware of comments made by .world users for example.
Unironically, one possible point of confusion may be the label of "TV" which is a little old school, where a more general "media" or something might work better this day and age.
They didn't see the "TV" in the pic lol
You've got it. Ukraine is a little less black and white than Israel Palestine, so you'll see some comments that are anti Ukraine.
It's similarly black and white (although the scale of genocide that is happening to Palestinians is on a completely different level of course) if one understands history. Ukraine is full of Nazis. Russia is killing them. Is Russia a good country? No, definitely not and they should be condemned for all the bad shit they do. But everyone should be in favor of Nazis getting murked. And then we'll get folks like "well Ukraine isn't Nazis" to which I respond "then why do they all have Nazi patches." And then one would respond "those are historical patches." To which I would reply "from what history." Then we always hear "well when they were fighting the communists." The obvious question is "on whose side?" And that's where folks get angry because they just walked into proving that Ukraine is historically full of Nazis, and thats why they continue to wear Nazi patches. Ukraine could choose to distance themselves from their Nazi history but they don't. The only explanation for not distancing yourself from your Nazi history and instead leaning into it is because you're a Nazi.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me, but I'm not a Nazi so that makes me pretty ~~biased~~ based
load more comments
(28 replies)
They're both self-defense
That's kinda the joke.
History is full of groups that were called terrorists before they were called governments. Whoever decides what is an act of war and what is an act of terrorism decides the rules of the game
Nelson Mandela was deemed a terrorist and British intelligence provided information to the apartheid regime to murder ANC activists in Europe in the 1960s and 1970s.
Those are...very limp barrels
(Overall message agreed ofc)
the illustration is a bit of an oversimplification, but I think a redeemable takeaway is that the rhetoric changes depending on which side (western) capital is supporting.
Funny that someone felt the need to put flags on this
Ukraine would be a drone
Yet the reverse is somehow not double standards, simply because the Russian state has a historical connection to socialism.
Well, unlike Palestine, Ukraine is filled with Nazis and is drawing all its war time funding from other fascist white countries.
Not sure what you are trying to claim here, or where you even encountered arguments based on Russia's historical connection to socialism.
Also, I would love to hear your opinion on what a state should do when the most prolific invader in the world tries to amass weapons and military personnel on that state's borders.
Name one nuclear-armed state America has dared to invade.
Firstly, going to note that you have not explained what a state should do in such a situation.
So, your argument is that you a priori expect NATO to never invade a nuclear-armed state, even though we already have a posteriori confirmation that NATO was trying to start a war with Russia, and has done things like try to occupy Kursk, as well as perfidiously either using civilians for military actions or masquerading military forces as civilians, as well as drone strike civilians?
Sure, nuclear weapons do make NATO act more cautiously, but let's not ignore that it has historically been very willing to take aggressive action against the USSR and its allies after the USSR developed and produced nuclear weapons.
view more: next ›