Statue of Anne Frank in Amsterdam defaced with pro-Palestinian graffiti for a second time
cbsnews.com
The statue commemorating Anne Frank, one of the most famous victims of the Holocaust, was defaced with pro-Palestinian graffiti for the second time on Sunday.
The statue is located in Merwedeplein, near the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam.
According to images published on X, the base of the statue was spray-painted with the slogan "Free Gaza" while the girl's hands were painted with the same red color, AFP reported.
You are viewing a single comment
It's to make a statement and draw attention, protest is supposed to make you upset. That's just how life works.
Ed:
Ie. Make the disrespect of Mrs Frank and her family visible by defacing a statue of her the same way Israel defaces Jewish history and legacy.
I get that angle, I do. I just question whether the statement works or not. Do you think the majority of people will interpret these actions that way? Do you think this will paint a good picture of anti-zionist action to the wider international public? Drop the "pro-palestinian" part and the headline reads like probably neo-nazi action. And I do firmly believe that's how it will be interpreted. I'm a revolutionary leftist like I'm all for taking action this action just serves not to advance the cause but actually to degrade it. This action legitimizes accusations of anti semitism levied at anti zionists. That is exactly how it will be interpreted that is the exact story they will tell.
They'll always try and accuse us of being antisemitic, see the college protests for example. But that was contentious like the public was not united in opposition to that because protesting on campus is not on its face value antisemitic. But defacing a statue of a girl who was murdered in a genocide of jewish people does NOT come across as anti-zionist action. We do NOT have to stir up outrage over disrespecting holocaust victims to advocate for Palestinian liberation.
Not to mention can we not have some respect for Jewish people within our movement? How do you think this makes them feel? An innocent girl who died due to virulent antisemitic hatred being brought into a conflict over another genocide. Jewish people tell us they don't always feel safe in leftist circles. This is also not helping that in any way
I think the conversation is only elevated the now annoyed they are about the protest act. Historically effective protest is to literally rattle as many cages as possible, people get annoyed and take a side.
English suffrage was only gained by breaking windows, burning buildings, donning cardboard armor then learning judo and beating the absolute shit out of cops.
Ed: I think it's more disrespectful for her to drag the Jewish faith along with Zionists solely because they claim the same religion, that's the whole point of attacking a famous Jew that cannot physically be harmed only defaced temporarily.
To be clear, totally down with civil unrest. This is not civil unrest. This is defacing a statue of a universally known holocaust victim. A victim who was a helpless child.
Rattling the cage of "innocent victims of genocide" is literally the last fucking cage anyone should ever rattle like what are you talking about. This is the shit that neo nazis do. This action puts us in league with neonazis in the mind of the majority of the public like what do you mean?? Also how is defacing genocide victim statues doing anything to further our cause of international recognition of the genocide of Palestinian?
Break some windows. Civil unrest, fight back against the states that support this genocide. No question yea do that. Don't deface Anne Franke statues like I genuinely can't even believe this has to be said. Again, how do you think this makes jewish anti-zionists feel? Does this make them feel welcome in our movement?
Correct that's protest, the fact that you find it repugnant is irrelevant. You're talking about it, you wouldn't be if they painted pro Palestine stuff anywhere else.
Anne and her father are both dead and their family aren't pro Israel, just as an fyi because their cages literally couldn't get rattled. I meant people like you, people more wrapped up in the statue and it's visage than the reason it was defaced in the first place. Yes, everyone protests, that's not the dig you think it is.
This is a broken window, it hurts literally no one and says a lot. Are you arguing for other means that often turn more violent than anonymous defacement? Why? You're valuing a chunk of material depicting a famous over millions of Innocent Palestinians, why is that?
What's your opinion of Qur'an burnings and depictions of the pedophile prophet?
Legit speech, go for it.
Though I will point out three fact that the only one who's being objectively racist and bigoted here is you just now with that statement.
You like Jews and don't like Muslims, good for you but maybe keep your hate speech to yourself.
There are many Christians and Muslims, and the few Jews I've meet, that I like; but all 3 of their religions are dumb.
Calling a man who had sex with a 9 year-old a pedophile isn't hate speech.
Sure, I don't disagree religion is dumb.
It is, the bible and Torah also have incest and pedophilia, pointing out one but not the others implies one is worse than the others.
I didn't say it was hate speech btw, I said you were being racist and bigoted which you objectively are.
I often mock Christianity based on Bible verses. In Leviticus, lesbians aren't condemned, the New Testament says women should generally shut up, and King Solomon was a tit-man.
You are so accurate.
Please, tell me what else do you objectively know about me.
Maybe so, you didn't this time you only chose Muslims. Now remind me, what is Palestine largely made up of? Oh yeah Muslims, I wonder if that's relevant and why I called you a bigot.
You just admitted to hating religion, that's objectively by your own admission bigoted. You ain't too smart are ya, you running on a Gameboy with half dead batteries or something?
I'm a bigot because I hate a religion?
By definition yes.
a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
You know, like a religion or something.
Did you miss the part where i said that I understood the intent but am calling out how this makes our movement look like fucking neo nazis? Do you want to re read what I've said please before throwing more baseless accusations at me?
No I wouldn't give a shit if they painted pro Palestine messages on any non-holocaust related memorials. Because that wouldn't make us look like neo nazis. This does. People are going to talk about this on the news today and millions of people will shake their head and lend more credence to claims that we are antisemites. And Jewish anti zionists now know that due to their religion some anti zionists are entirely willing to throw them under a bus in the name of "rattling cages".
It doesn't make anyone look like neo Nazis aside from the people who cannot see duality.
Yes she's a Jew, neat.
She's also the most famous victim of genocide ever.
There's a current genocide that is being committed by isrealis a famously majority Jewish nation.
The fact that you can't see her as anything but a Jew is more telling of you than anyone else.
Re read the first paragraph of the comment you're responding to. I'm not interested in continuing this conversation if you are entirely incapable of considering how this will be viewed and how this impacts people without our own movement.
The way it will be viewed is the point!
There trying to force people to see that people can be two things, a Jew and a victim of genocide and that dichotomy is important considering the current genocide is being committed by Jews against Palestinians largely because of religious and possesive reasons.
I'm not interested in talking with anyone who refuses to go full stop, I don't enjoy apologists.
She was murdered before 1948.
Super irrelevant Mr bot.
You don't think Nazis murdering teenage girls is relevant?
Random dates without context or relation are always going to be irrelevant. Complete a full thought, have your owner replace those watch batteries.
I don't think the murder was random.
It is, you never connected it to anything.
About 200 civilians died today, your point? Or are we hanging random facts with no context or a full thought.
Many people find antisemitism to be upsetting. Just because it's being done as protest to upset people doesn't change what it is.
What's antisemitic about it? The same thing that happened to her is happening to Palestinian children right now and this message is just highlighting the disparity between the two in the response from the rest of the world.
It's not anti semitic it's anti zionic, Otto famously refusing to move to Israel and instead to iirc Switzerland.
The fact people know who Anne is and what the protest is about makes it very telling when people say it's anti semitic in the same way people say being anti zionic is anti semitic.
Anne Frank has nothing to do with Zionism. She was dead long before the formation of Israel. She represents the suffering, struggles, and genocide of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis.
It would be like walking up to a Jewish person, regardless of their position on Zionism, and punching them in the face and then trying to claim it isn't antisemitism but a protest against Zionism.
Sorry, but it is. They might not realize that they are blaming all Jews for Zionism, but that's precisely what they are doing.
Wrong, she's a famous public figure who's family are openly anti Israeli. Neither her not her father Otto are likely to take issue to drawing attention to genocide... You know being arguably the most famous victim of it. But no no she's a Jew that's all she'll ever be, you're right how shameful of me to suggest otherwise.
Not at all the same, who's harmed here? Your best example is actual physical violence when we're talking about inanimate property.
Nope what you're doing is implying that because she is a new she cannot be a symbol for Palestinians actively being genocided by members of her faith.
Wait, you're arguing that her family would be for them defacing her memorial? Wow. No wonder you have to make up my position.
What if they painted a swastika on it? No one was harmed. Is that also nothing like the analogy I made?
No, what I'm saying is that targeting her for the protest, when she has nothing to do with Israel, makes it pretty clear they are targeting her because she is a jew. If you want to deface a genocide memorial to make your point about Gazans being the victim of genocide, it wouldn't expose your antisemitism if you targeted memorials of victims other genocides.
No, I suggested her family would be ashamed of you for reducing her to just a jew, you ignore the genocide victim section and instead claim antisemitism solely because she's Jewish.
That's hate speech, there's laws for that. There isn't for making valid comparisons.
She may have nothing to do with Israel, but she has everything to do with genocide, the fact you can't see that over her religion is the fucking point.
I certainly never did anything of the sort. Which is what I mean about making up my position. You can't debate what I said, so you have to make up something ridiculous to attack.
But this still doesn't answer my question. We are talking about someone defacing her memorial, and you said "Neither her not her father Otto are likely to take issue to drawing attention to genocide."
I can only interpret this one of two ways: either you think they would be okay with people defacing her memorial, or you think that I'm against drawing attention to genocide. I can assure you the latter is not true, but can you explain? Maybe I'm missing something.
I very explicitly told them what they could do about the genocide part of it without exposing their antisemitism.
Again, many other genocide memorials one could deface, including right in Amsterdam. You seem to be projecting: you think that I'm focusing solely on her being Jewish, while you are seemingly ignoring it from your point.
You are though, the fact you don't see it is my point.
They wouldn't have an issue with someone spattering a statue with paint to draw attention to something she died from and he lived through. No, that seems like common sense and Otto talked quite a bit about his feelings about genocide. I'm not even sure how you screwed up plain English that badly unless you're simply trying to twist what I said.
They would be ok with someone defacing the memorial to draw attention to genocide, notice that haven't made a statement something they would do of it bothered them. I'm saying your actions say you're against drawing attention to genocide, your motivations may be different but looking from the outside in reducing someone to a jew and not a icon is pretty shitty behavior.
How did they expose their anti semitism? As far as I'm aware all they did was paint pro Palestine stuff, there's no indication as far as I'm aware that any of it was directly anti semitic only that people have taken it that way because she is Jewish.
Are the others as famous? No? Are they Jews? No. You want then to "protest the right way" you're part of the problem.
You're confusing what you want to be true with "common sense." I'm not saying you are wrong, I don't know the man so to me it's "common sense" not to speak for him, but I find it terribly presumptuous to believe that they would be okay with this.
It's a ridiculous logic jump from because I think their actions are antisemitic, that means I'm against drawing attention to the genocide. It's the same exact ridiculously baseless logic that Netenyahu and so many Zionists are using to paint any protest of their actions as antisemitism. It's shocking to see it used "in reverse."
It's kind of hilarious for you to use this argument while arguing that it's ridiculous to assume that defacing the a jewish memorial is antisemitic, when there is zero link for the former and a pretty glaring one for the latter.
Again, putting words in my mouth. I'm just pointing out how defacing a memorial of a jewish person that has nothing to with Zionism reeks of antisemitism. Also, funny, how you telling me protesting their actions with my words is wrong and I'm against drawing attention the genocide, are basically telling me to "protest the right way." What's good for the goose, my friend.
Are you seriously arguing the family wouldn't want genocide bright to light? Are you actually dumb are just choosing idiotic arguments. Maybe I do, the family isn't hidden of you cared you'd reach out but you'd rather be enraged than involved in a meaningful way.
Your comment just now doesn't make it seem any less like your pro genocide dude, your honestly arguing that the family might be pro genocide.
You're only keeping nety by being so reductive you don't see the reason why Anne frank is the perfect icon for this.
Defacing a genocide memorial to bring light to genocide isn't anti semitic, it's apt and you're blind. It's what I mean when I say you reduce her to solely a Jew.
No I'm using your statements against you, stop saying crazy shit and it won't be as easy.
I'm not telling you how to do anything, I'm calling out your bigoted bullshit.
I already explicitly and directly told you this is untrue, and yet you still misrepresent it. Why? What purpose does it serve you to continually misrepresent my position?
You can't tell the difference between saying they might be against a memorial to their daughter being vandalized and being pro-genocide? "Are you actually dumb are just choosing [sic] idiotic arguments. [sic]"
Incorrect. What I'm saying is that her Jewishness in inextricably tied to her and a memorial to her and the genocide of Jewish people. Again, you keep seeming to ignore it, but there are other genocide monuments right in Amsterdam that they could have defaced and still done the "defacing a genocide memorial to draw attention to a genocide."
You're literally accusing me of supporting genocide by my protest of their actions. It's the same exact thing I'm doing with their antisemitic protest. The difference is that I can logically support my claim, while yours requires ignoring what I've explicitly told you is my position.
It'll take however many times I have to tell you you're being a bigot it seems.
I'm saying they likely wouldn't given you know the whole genocide thing being kind of a big issue for their family. You're actively arguing against logic.
Indeed. So you not see how her being a Jew could be related to a Jewish nation genociding people like a ostensibly Catholic nation genocided the Jews... It's not irrelevant or anti semitic to say Israelis out of all nations should know what genocide looks like. Ok, what statue works better for you? Hitler, Himmler, are you suggesting they go vandalize the Holocaust museum. Seriously I'm interested, what person or place is more iconic in relation to Jews being genocided than the most famous genocided Jew?
I am, I'm not however telling you to do anything. I'm hoping you see how bigoted it is to say she can be a icon of genocide but can't be brought up because she's Jewish. You're the bigoted one, you just don't see that your weird white knight attitude is keeping you from seeing the forest for the trees.
Ed: to be clear I think you mean well you're going so far away from trying to be bigoted you ended up bigoted.
I get where you're coming from but all this is going to do is fuel the fire under people who think support for Palestine is hate for the Jewish community as a whole.
People said that about MLK's walks.
And if his walks included racist undertones those complaints would have been valid. Your rebuttal could be used against literally anything. The Oklahoma bombings were done in protest to Waco and other shit. You going to defend that protest because i think it was extremist and say it's not the right way to protest? There's a line and using MLK to justify crossing it is disgusting.
American white nationalists regularly insisted they did and claimed that they were being victimized by angry black mobs.
Subsequent efforts by Hoover's FBI during the COINTELPRO operation aimed at black civil rights leaders attempted to stock those fears and legitimize them with fabricated evidence in support of the claim.
Yes that is my point. He wasn't doing actual racist shit so they had to make stuff up. Genociders won't have that problem here.
And large numbers of White Americans believed it, because they were primed to assume colored people were monsters.
Stocking the hate towards Arabs is a pivotal part of the war effort against Gaza.
And, in my opinion, spray painting "free gaza" on a statue depicting a jewish teenager who died in the holocaust is only going to help them have something to point at and say "see, we're right"
If you look at a Holocaust victim's memorial tagged with a condemnation of another Holocaust, and you think you yourself "Arab people deserve to be exterminated"...
Well they're currently being exterminated for simply existing so ellipsis right back at ya
They aren't credible.
Are you saying the person who did the defacing is an agent of the Israeli government?
In the 1950s and 60s, they were considered extremely credible.
No more than I am suggesting J. Edgar Hoover was Jewish.
I don't think so.
or the Mossad infiltrated black groups in the US, I suppose. 😏
Shrug George Wallace was a governor for multiple terms. Strom Thurmond was a senator for decades. Nixon won the South on racism.
Black radical groups tended to align with Islam, particularly later into the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
George Wallace lost to Nixon in 1968.
What did Nixon say about MLK?
I know little about Thurmond, but what did the bigot from the small state of South Carolina say about MLK in the 1950s and 1960s?
I'm sure at times the Mossad infiltrated Islamic groups.
Calling it anti semitic is my definition making it racial, I didn't do that.
That's correct, it wasn't an effective protest because it didn't get the change he wanted but did put his word out there, right here today I could get that manifesto in less than 30 seconds.
I don't think anyone is supporting violence like a bombing, this is literal paint. Calm down, they aren't comparable at all.
used to deface a memorial to a victim of genocide.
To bring light to genocide.
Imagine for a second that Anne frank wasn't a Jew just the most famous genocide victim of all time, would it then be ok to deface the statue being directly relevant to the reason for protest.
But she was Jewish. She was a Jewish victim of a genocide of jewish people. It is a very prominent opinion that those advocating for Palestinian liberation are promoting a genocide of jewish people.
Where in that graffiti do you see anti semitic anything.
As far as I'm aware red hands means there is blood on their hands and free Gaza means.. I suppose this isn't complicated but "free Gaza".
You are adding anti semitism where there isn't any.
Nazis deface these kind of things, so if such are defaced, it's reasonable to suspect Nazis or those doping so to be sympathetic to Nazis.
Sure.
What's your reasoning to think this was "Nazis".
I'll wait Mr bot.
They murdered Ann Frank.
How long did it take you to research that irrelevant fuckin point.
Who programmed your buggy ass?
Again, I can see the possible intent behind this. And I agree that it was most likely not done with the intention of coming across as anti Semitic. But that is how others see it. Read the news articles about it. Look at the comments people have left.
And blood on their hands? Them being what? Jewish people? Are you saying that all Jewish people bear responsibility for the crimes of the state of Israel?
No we know it wasn't because there's nothing anti semitic on it, nothing. Your implying something that doesn't exist. Yes, the news makes money by sparking culture was bullshit and making mountains of molehills. Find me something the news doesn't make seem like the end of the goddamn world and I'll be more surprised.
Goddamn did you look at the picture? It's describing the graffiti.
Ed: and I quote
"It looks like x or it looks like y", you clearly haven't even seen the graffiti but you're off arguing about it.
How would it be relevant to the reason of the protest?
Oh Mr bot you're not even making sense.
It may not be the same as a bombing but the people whose minds they're trying to change are only going to close further because they don't want to be seen as supporting anti-semitism. Which when you're defacing a jewish child's statue seems like a not so far off stretch.
It's not at all the same thing, you're being bombastic about stupid shit.
Defacing a genocide victims statue to bring light to an active genocide committed by members of her religion, famously mass victims of genocide now commiting genocide.
You're part of the problem, stop with the "protest the right way" bullshit.
So you think it'd be logical and a good move for trans civil rights activists to deface an mlk statue? Since apparently defacing victim monuments is your idea of a productive protest, why isn't it happening?
Do you know remember last year or two when there was a rash of statue defacement that sparked meaningful conversation, you seen to just be I'll informed based on your two weird comments.
You mean confederate statues? Or was an mlk statue defaced to fight police brutality and it slipped through my finders?
https://www.nprillinois.org/springfield-il/2024-06-18/vandalized-mlk-statue-in-springfield-to-return-soon
Multiple statues multiple vandalizations. Maybe read a newspaper.
https://www.mlk50.nl/50-statues/vandalism/
maybe you should provide relevant quotes to your links.
Bigots deface MLK statues.
Nazis deface Jewish things.
Genocide protestors paint genocide iconography.
You hear genocide you think Holocaust and and Frank.
Name a single better genocide symbol that would be a better target of vandalism to make a point.
And the people who did it were racist trying to be racist. Thanks for proving my point that at best it's bad optics and damaging to their cause.
An edit just to laugh at the thought that you were thinking you had me only to post links to mlk statues being beheaded during black history month. You really think the people who did that were supporting blm?
Yes. Yes, they vandalized a statue of a relevant figure. Racism = MLK, police = George Floyd, colonialism = Columbus.
It's not always the things they're against that get vandalized, its what's relevant and will be noticed.
And that's how I can tell you took it at face value and didn't actually read anymore on the subject.
Famous civil rights locations were vandalized and some burned down during civil rights protests.. again, they do what gets attention which generally is what is annoying or controversial because literally no one cares if you chant outside Costco for 5 days.
Protest the right way.
^((at least try to.)^)
Hey thrown out the window the right way.
There are times and places.
Something tells me you adore Hugo boots Mr bot.
What would a bot want with boots?
Nazis boots 8 are presumably just as fashion forward as their Nazi creators.
They did and they were wrong but his walks also did not bolster claims of anti semitism by defacing memorials to holocaust victims
It bolstered the concept of the "entitled ni**er" at the time, read a newspaper taking about it before it happened.
Please link us to articles and commentaries in such (supposed) newpapers.
I'll look them up when I get home but your trying to get me to prove racist comments in 1964 and somehow think that's a high bar to jump.
Either history escapes you or you are wildly ignorant.
Good luck, and try to make them major dailies. Rantings by, say, The KKK Times won't count.
both.
You honestly think it's going to be hard to find racism in a newspaper from 1964, you know sitting marches about racist shit in newspapers for instance.
Bold admission boss, seriously. Your creator has some work to do.
You have your work cut out.
I don't envy you.
Many newspapers have paywalls and/or ads, and there's a lot of crap on Google.
You act like libraries don't exist.
And I mean that as you're seemingly unaware you can look at old newspapers for free at your local library and also that you seem dumb enough to never have been at a library and honestly don't know.
I'm in Toronto, the 4th most populated city in North America, but even here I have to travel several km to get to libraries where I might be able to access microfiche slides and IIUC libraries here aren't open 24/7.
Again, your task, should you indeed choose it, probably won't be an easy one.
Oh my several kilometers! How could anyone do that.
All you're saying is that you're extremely lazy and very annoying.
Stop.