Probably the only type of destruction of art as protest I condone. The piece:

Is not very old or culturally/historically important
Directly depicts someone at the root of this conflict
Was deliberately targeted and the reasons layed out

About where I'm at. Normally I get immensely irritated by 'protesters' who go and vandalize unrelated and historically important artwork, but this isn't particularly objectionable.

Agreed, except that I would call this peaceful protest. Vandalism isn't violence. Violence is against a person. As long as no person was relying on this painting for their meals or shelter or whatever - and they definitely weren't - then no person was harmed.

Another important detail to consider is that these pieces are really only worthwhile for their historical value. I would argue that this response is more significant than the original production of the painting.

If anything, the value of this painting will increase due to the added historical value of this event.

actually later on this will add more historical value to it.

Definitely. Historic or not, don't put bad people on pedestals. E.g. there's a reason why you don't see statues of Hitler in Germany.

If we are going to shed tears for the loss of culture, then the loss of Roman era bath houses and early Christian churches in Gaza is quite a bit more concerning to me than this painting.

Or leave it: I think it's improved this way: a terrible man, a mediocre painting, in context with the ongoing genocide he put into motion. It invites the viewer to wonder what kind of legacy the rich folk who paid for these paintings have.

They can go into the same pile as all those Confederate statues and flags.

Hang on a tick. Is that my old cheese? My good-time boy?! Or is he but a simple human man?