A Italian master painting stolen by the Nazis from a Jewish art dealer in Amsterdam has been spotted on the website of an estate agent selling a house in Argentina, more than 80 years after it was taken.
A photo shows Portrait of a Lady by Giuseppe Ghislandi hanging above a sofa inside a property near Buenos Aires once owned by a senior Nazi official who moved to South America after the Second World War.
The painting, which features on a database of lost wartime art, was traced when the house was put up for sale by the official’s daughter, Dutch newspaper AD reports.
The artwork is among hundreds looted from art dealer Jacques Goudstikker, who helped other Jews escape during the war.
Palestine should be free. But being antisemitic does nothing to help and actively harms it by alienating Jews that are pro Palestinian. It also lends credence to the bullshit that to be pro Palestine is to be antisemitic.
No one is free unless everyone is free.
You still haven’t identified the antisemitism. You dislike using the funds to support Palestine, but you failed to articulate why using the funds from the proceeds of selling art stolen by Nazis to support a community currently experiencing a Holocaust by modern Nazis is antisemitism.
The state is Israel historically collaborated with Nazis and have publicly stated that the antisemites of the world will be their allies, what’s more pro semitic than supporting the semitic victims (Palestinians) of the allies of antisemites?
The problem is the gesture is too ambiguous. If you’re focused on “Netanyahu’s Israel is behaving like Nazis” then the idea of using loot from the last lot of Nazis to support the victims of present-day Nazis looks good. But if you focus on the fact that this painting was stolen by Nazis from its Jewish owner, you might think it should go back to its owner’s descendants. In that light, seizing it again to keep it out of the hands of its rightful Jewish owners looks like adding insult to injury.
The funds, or painting itself, should be returned to the families it was stolen from. That family was very likely Jewish. So you saying “give it to Palestine!” implies taking from Jewish people, which would be unfair, but in this context also implies they “owe” it because Israel is to blame, and Jews=Israel.
I do see your connection now that you have explained it though, I wonder if maybe you just stumbled and missed the very negative subtext within your suggestion.
It’s completely valid to say “actually, I think any proceeds should go to the original victims if we can identify them today”, but that’s not what you said, you said it’s antisemitism to suggest giving it to specifically Palestinians. Would you have called it antisemitic if they suggested giving the money to doctors without borders?
You can disagree with the allocation of the proceeds, or the idea is selling the art in the first place, but you immediately jumped to accusation is antisemitism because Palestinians were involved.
I didn’t disagree with your “allocation” nor did I accuse you of antisemitism nor did I “connect Israel with all Jews”, perhaps your reading comprehension is worse than you would like to think. Explaining subtext as to why something would be perceived as a thing doesn’t make you that thing.
Let me put it this way: is it antisemitic to forget that the Jewish victim exists when discussing Nazis stealing art ? If not, does it SEEM like antisemitism if YOU then start talking about taking that money/painting that was stolen and rightfully belongs to some Jewish family somewhere, and giving it to Palestine?
Your comment made the connection.
Are you denying the government of Palestine has the right to exist? That’s pretty antisemitic