3 ms·

For sake of argument, I think that the difference may be that if an artifact is stolen can be recovered. It may even continue to be available to researchers an

• nemo 6y ago
  The question of whether a returned article would be destroyed is something to consider, though the notion that this would happen in Iraq and Syria assumes something like another US invasion which caused the destruction and looting in Iraq and Syria the first place. Americans (or others in the Coalition of the Willing) arguing we should keep stolen antiquities because in the future we might destabilize the places we're returning stolen goods to so badly they could be destroyed sounds a little like a threat. I'm not at all comfortable with the idea that Americans shouldn't return stolen antiquities because America might destabilize the region of the original owner again so badly it could be destroyed.
• nemo 6y ago
  >It is a much different scenario if an artifact is destroyed either intentionally or unintentionally. I'd forgotten to respond to this earlier but it's been bugging me, so I'd like to note that a significant amount stolen art is never recovered. In some cases prominent and expensive artworks have been destroyed by the thieves when they couldn't move the art in an attempt to destroy the evidence. Stolen art is sometimes destroyed either intentionally or unintentionally.