ALPHABET OF JUSTICE
419
to
the Israelis, to the judgment of Eichmann, to the memory of the
Jews murdered in Europe? and, second, how "adequate" is such a
standard, not as a denial of the nature of justice, but as a response
to the events themselves?
To be didactic is often to lose the excitement of a debate. Yet in
the midst of so much controversy, and because of the gravity of the
issues, one can keep one's bearings only in this way. Let me therefore,
in dealing with the first of the two questions I have posed, divide it into
four issues which seem to be at the heart of the "accusations" against
Miss Arendt- accusations as extreme as that in the London
Observer,
which capitalized journalistically on the controversy while printing
extracts from her book by saying that she "has been accused of being
an anti-semite, a supporter of the Nazis and a brazen apologist for
Eichmann."
These four issues are her observations on :
I.
The conduct of the trial.
II. The Israeli motives.
III. The role of the Jewish community leadership in Europe.
IV. The character, and thus the "responsibility" of Eichmann.
I.
THE CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL
Hannah Arendt has argued that the trial in Jerusalem was often a
"show trial," at times even a "mass meeting," rather than a court for
the administration of justice. In law, a man must be tried not for
what he is, or for what he stands, but for what he did, and that alone.
"This case was built on what the Jews had suffered, not on what
Eichmann had done- according to Hausner this distinction was
im–
material.'" Thus, there were more than fifty "sufferings-of-the-peoples
witnesses" whose testimony was irrelevant to any specific action of
Eichmann's. The atmosphere was such that witness after witness sought
to arouse the audience on "matters that had no connection whatever
with the crimes of the accused."
"Justice demands that the accused be prosecuted, defended and
judged and that
all other
questions of
seemingly
greater import . ..
be
left in abeyance." (My italics.) Of course, Miss Arendt does not leave
them in abeyance-who can? But when she insists that what is
primary, that what is "on trial are [Eichmann's] deeds, not the suffering
I.
To save space and to avoid the tiresome repetition of "Miss Arendt said .. ."
or "Miss Arendt declared . .." let it be understood that all quotations, unless
otherwise stated, are by Miss Arendt.
