Book Analysis Essay Example: Eichmann in Jerusalem

Arendt's book accounts for the events that proceeded during the trial of Adolf Eichmann in an Israeli court. Eichmann was convicted as one of the chief members of the Holocaust organization that actively took part in the Nazism in Germany. The author seeks to provoke a deeper scrutiny into the common and existing beliefs as far as moral responsibility is concerned.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Vast volumes of emotional and intellectual prowess have been used by learned persons from a various disciplines-categories, with a never concluding attempt to perceive how people will ever put themselves to committing actions such as the Holocaust crimes (Geddes 104-115). Regardless of his high ranking post in the administration of the outrageous and malicious Nazi organization, Eichmann was involved among thousands of sadists invariably involved in the planning and implementation of Adolf Hitlers unscrupulous and malicious order, that is, the objective of ensuring the total elimination of Jewish effect in Europe by adopting any method thought to be effective (Arendt 20).

Through simple reasoning, it is evident that Eichmann is simply a great definition for a lunatic thrown into a system that perfectly suits his capabilities well. Such an action depicted by Eichmann characterizes an integral part of the German populations in the period of Nazism as incredibly insane. Eichmann seems to be denying the fact that still waters run deep, which is exactly the defining phrase of him.

As part of her coverage of the event, Arendt notes that there were various challenges pertaining to legal judgment and exercising of justice in the trial. Of a primary concern, is the legal intention leading to the trial decision, where she cites that, the courts were too much obsessed with proving that Eichmann had a preformed intention of instigating genocide, so as to convict him. She, instead points out that the court should have taken into great consideration the very actions of Eichmann in the crime activities rather than intentions, for instance, the creating of a policy for genocide by the convict (Arendt 32).

Eichmanns inability to think conferred a disregard to consider the importance and value that can be invoked by thinking and as a result destructing and displacing whole populations is considered a raid on both the particular groups and humanity as well. It seems inevitable that Eichmann is tried by each country against which genocide was done to its population; a similar instinct shared by Arendt.

In a more concise manner, it comes out that justice was efficiently exercised to the Eichmann trial putting into consideration the Atrocities involved. By pointing out to his failure to think of the situation and the subsequent results, shows an attempt to hide his intent from the trial court. This is however equally punishable since it reflects a failure to consider the effects of a fatal action to humanity, what Arendt refers to as evil banality and an exactly fatal act of crime (Richard 10). Also his involvement in creating and living up to genocidal principles compared to ignoring acceptable governing laws and principles call for an equal act of justice as the one decided by the court, that is, death.

The controversies surrounding the trial of Eichmann reveal certain flaws in the administration of justice with regard to merits and limitations of trials in these cases. The court clearly failed to carry out the trial on the basis of the punishable acts.

In exercising the strengths of such trials, the court made good use of the witness testimony of the Holocaust survivors as a frontal trial tool and source of conviction. As expected for many cases, the survivors serve a great deal of method of trial. This, however, begs the question as to what extent of validity of the witness is enough to convince the trial in a particular manner, bearing in mind that these were the only sources available. No one actually cites Eichmann on the very acts of performing the malicious acts.

On the other hand, Eichmann is looked upon as a referral point of crime and a scapegoat on behalf of the governments involved and the real causes of the genocide. The courtroom heaps on the burden of the Holocaust as Eichmanns full responsibility of the traumatic events. This action by the court perceives Eichmann to be a malicious sadist and pervert monster other than a just normally special type of criminal. Rightfully, a human beings thinking capability is so powerful that no amount of Nazism can effectively implicate it and render it otherwise. For Eichmann, thinking is a physiological process rather than a sense of judgment, that can be turned on and off at the will of the thinker and the ensuing environment, like the Nazism activities.

What ultimately condemns Eichmann to the death trial, and here justice is rightly exercised by the trial, is his involvement in creating and living principles and notions that are contrary to the laws that govern acceptable moral activities. His inability to be critical of the law lets him down into a pit of his own death. Eichmann openly lets the court know that could just keep on undertaking his malicious acts through modifying his ideology of what is real and with that, ignoring any instincts of conscience that may have come up to his mind as carried out the genocidal activities.

Over reliance of the survivor, witness shows how limited the international courts are in administering of trials for genocides and crimes against humanity. Obtaining second-hand witness information is subject to personal and political distortions and interference. As in most cases, the court did rely on this kind of information to interpret Eichmann as an orchestrator and perpetrator of extremist beliefs and malicious acts, rather than an individual withdrawn into the morass of genocidal activities in that particular time in his life. The court does not find out find out and evaluate the inevitable circumstances under which Eichmann is withdrawn into the startup activities leading to the genocides activities.

The court does not efficiently take into consideration the plight of Eichmann about those who made an attempt to deliver out their cohorts from such outrageous activities and could not come up with anything right, but themselves ended up in the same extremist activities. The court ignores the fact that people of this category, in which Eichmann could have been, found themselves in a web of a complicating dilemma, between saving some portions of peril-severed Jewish society in Europe through coming at arms with a sadistic and regime of great power and influence so as to tune down the influence of its policy for the genocide; or risk experiencing complete failure and consequently total elimination through showing dissent and calling for great resistance.

Using this consideration, it is evident that the peers and cohorts who championed after saving their fellows through supporting the depiction of a more advantageous status within a fortunate minority who themselves did not possess any chance of making a choice at all. This was particularly true when referring to the blatant truth which, they initially were faced with, that is, lack of an army, lack of weapons and caches, and the lack of militarily trained youths that would take part in fighting the Nazis, in case they pursued the other possible option. Therefore, the authors suggestion concerning the approach the Jews took, which led them to a route of self-destruction does not clearly stand in justifying the actions of Eichmann.

After falling short of the expected petitions that would nail Eichmann to an appropriate trial, the court condemns Eichmann to a death penalty for his involvement in the Nazi activities that lead up to the genocide. From the above decisions, it is appropriate to conclude that the trial was efficient and right for the convict based on the petitions citing to crimes against humanity he was involved in. From his deepest ambitions, Eichmann demonstrates highly thoughtful and fanatic decoration of unscrupulous commands given out by self-seeking seniors. He shows personal pride by hoe efficient he carries out his assigned actions clearly revealing how selfish and malicious people can be manipulated to look willingly over the accepted implications for their acts by an interactive reasoning out that stresses on precisely crafted regulatory and effectivity better than any other manner.

As pointed out by Arendt, Eichmann exhibits a banal behavior by failure to think about his engagement in the activities leading up to the genocide and participating in the genocide as well. By letting him to be out of control of his owner behavior and acting unconsciously calls for equal measures of criminal punishment as those for involvement in the genocide. No amount of malice or illness can surpass the deep lying intentions of the mind and contemplations of an individuals heartily desires. A more dangerous way of propagating disaster lies in the inability to rationally consider involvement in any action. The most dangerous of all these, however, is the conscious decision to ignore or plan not to think or divert ones thoughts away from the possible effects that may arise due to the execution of a particular plan of action.

The discovery that Eichmann was extremely well by the court does not help matters too, as it further proved that he actually chose to ignore his consciousness in conducting and being part of activities that are of outrageous and lethal consequences to humanity. This the court rightly finds out like this an extreme act of crime in itself with Eichmanns blatant guilt paraded before the court portraying him as some willful and enthusiastic empathizer crimes against humanity. The outstanding and open pride exhibited by Eichmann, at the very point of his trial, owing to the fact that Eichmann had performed all of his responsibilities to the his best of actions and capabilities, poses a challenge to the normal ideologies concerning the expected inborn morality that comes hand in hand with hard work and proper utilization of possessions by the individuals themselves. As a matter of fact, such is an area through which the most lasting price of the authors critique is part of.

The trial delivered is well justified owing to the adverse effects an otherwise ruling would have implied such an internationally followed trial case. Eichmann could not be accorded any better fate putting into consideration the atrocities involved and the great number of humans and countries affected by the genocide in which he participated. At least in the face of the world and to the best interests of the victims and survivors of the genocidal actions, justice was exercised at its best.

One may argue out that his direct personal actions in the genocide should have been considered in giving the final verdict. However, the extent of his involvement, supposedly indirect speaks large volumes of his hand in the prevalence and success of such extremist activities against the human race. Pointing out to the Federal Governments sole responsibility in handling their own, would equally be pointless as no level of court trial would come up with a different or better method of trial for punishing such atrocity. Right from the point at which Eichmann was identified to have a case against him to answer, the final verdict of the trial to come was already barely open to the world, the victims and even to Eichmann himself. In fact, even as he planned the genocidal policies and executed them in the various capacities assigned, he had in mind what all this would end to, and that is to bring his ultimate end through a legal trial. Perhaps that explains why he was so overwhelmingly initiated and convinced to carry out such lethal minded acts.

It is, therefore, worth noting that the reflections put forward by Arendt make up an ex...