Sentencing Adolf Eichmann

My father weighs the political and moral arguments for and against capital punishment of this contemptible war criminal, ultimately registering more concern for the collective guilt of society and the need to eliminate the conditions that allow for genocide.

The elimination of one psychotic monster will not protect the world from future disaster. There must be an awareness of the need for constant vigilance on the part of nations as a whole. There must be the realization that guilt is widely distributed and not confined to an Eichmann or a Hitler alone.

A SUBJECT THAT SEEMS TO HAVE AROUSED much more than ordinary interest is the question of what Israel should do with Adolf Eichmann[1] now that he has been found guilty as charged. Several weeks ago I conducted a question and answer period with our Temple-Teens and the very first question asked of me was, "What do you think of the death penalty for Eichmann?" The announcement of this topic, at least the first time — as you know, I postponed the discussion then because of a guest who addressed us — seems to have brought a bit better attendance at the service than might have been there otherwise. And this interest is, of course, not merely because of the nature of Eichmann's crimes, but also because of our interest in the question of capital punishment which in recent years has been an issue amongst us.
 
There is no difference of opinion about the court's verdict of guilty. There seems to be very little continuation of the old dispute as to whether Israel should try Eichmann in the first place. A Christian clergyman living in Jerusalem reports that people who told him originally they thought it was a mistake and should not be done, now come to him and tell him that it was a good thing. The most important Christian Arab religious leader says, "We never realized how appalling were these atrocities that happened to the Jews. The trial has helped us to understand how Israel and why Israel was created." But there is some difference of opinion as to carrying out the sentence that has just recently been imposed.
 
Those who favor the death penalty for Eichmann say that it is totally unrelated to the question of capital punishment in general. They point out that according to Israeli law capital punishment is banned, but that the death penalty is permitted, nevertheless, when a man is pronounced guilty of what is not the murder of an individual, but genocide, crimes against a whole people. And the Rev. William Hull,[2] a Christian clergyman living in Jerusalem, says that "nothing short of the death penalty is justified."
 
There are also those who say that Israel, having tried Eichmann, now has no alternative but to put him to death, not only because of the enormity of the crimes committed, but also now to keep the peace. They are convinced that if Eichmann is permitted to live, it will enable some of his sympathizers to hope that he may be set free and even invite them to attempt to set him free by force. Perhaps Arabs might want to do that as a gesture of defiance to Israel. Thus if he lives, he may be a source of great agitation and disturbance, whereas once he is put to death, the matter is at an end. His sympathizers will not have any reason to cause trouble.
 
And there is also the opinion that in trying Eichmann, Israel showed great strength as a nation, but if he were now not punished by death, this might be interpreted as a sign of weakness after all, and the respect previously gained might be dissipated.
 
In contrast to these feelings there is the attitude of Martin Buber,[3] famed Israeli philosopher and theologian, who has stated that he would ask the President of Israel[4] to commute the sentence to life imprisonment. He explained that this is not out of sympathy for Eichmann, but because he was opposed in principle to capital punishment, and he applied the principle even to the Eichmann case. Society simply does not have the right to kill, according to him, under any circumstances. Many rabbis in this country have also expressed similar feelings and the New York Times, too, has editorially favored life imprisonment.
 
My own feelings lie in the same direction. I cannot build up any too strong a fighting spirit about it, but I believe Israel might do well not to insist on the death penalty. I must agree with Martin Buber when he speaks of the sanctity of human life. And even though we may not be able to see much sanctity in a life such as Eichmann's, he is, nevertheless, one of the species, and if it is wrong to take human life, then we may well question whether there may be exceptions.
 
But even if an exception is justified, it seems to me that Israel might serve a higher good by refraining from executing the sentence. After all, Israel, too, is in principle opposed to capital punishment. It is a principle that has not yet everywhere been established, as we know from circumstances even in our own country. And this may possibly be an opportunity to exert some influence with respect to this issue. It might be helpful in the fight against capital punishment if it could be said in the future by those who oppose it, that Israel, even with the greatest provocation that could possibly come to pass, did not exact the death penalty from Eichmann, monster though he was. Israel would be showing in this event a kind of moral leadership that would make it outstanding among the nations of the world.
 
Of course, there are many who see in the trial and in the sentence the virtue that Israel shows itself not different from the other nations of the world, but like them after all. It tries those who are its criminal enemies as any proud and independent people would, and it imposes penalties upon the guilty as any other nation would. For some this ability of Israel to function like the other nations is the supreme glory. But somehow, although I like to see Israel have the power to function like the other nations, I think the supreme glory would be if on certain occasions it would forbear to do so, that it discipline itself in the use of power, and demonstrate to the world that its Jewish heritage makes it different from other nations after all, and that one need not expect from Israel a conventional view on moral questions.
 
There is yet another reason that makes the death penalty not seem right. There is no punishment whatsoever that could possibly be appropriate to the crime. The magnitude of what was done can scarcely be comprehended, and man's imagination cannot possibly envisage a penalty that would be commensurate. And yet, even though there is no possible atonement on this earth for that which has been done to the Jewish people, in the minds of the world I am afraid that when and if the trap of the gallows is sprung, the accounts will be considered square. The world will be all too ready to say, "yes, there was a great crime committed, but the man responsible was apprehended and convicted and punished and now let us forget the whole thing." It might even be better not to punish at all as a symbol that no punishment can possibly be inflicted that makes sense or measures up to the horror of what was done, and as a symbol that the guilt involves many more than Eichmann.
 
There is a danger, in any case, that Eichmann’s trial may backfire and his execution may heighten that danger. It may be that too much attention has been turned to Eichmann, and that the purpose of the trial itself will fade from mind. The trial was held because Israel wanted the world not to forget what had been done to the Jewish people. The trial was held because Israel felt that the exposure of Nazi beastiality might so stir the conscience of the world that a similar catastrophe could not ever happen, that the world might be made more sensitive when human beings find themselves in distress. As Judge Landau[5] himself put it in his rendering of the verdict, the trial raised the questions of how this could happen in the light of day, how much guilt did nations other than Germany have, and what lesson can be learned for the future. The world did learn a lot about what happened under Nazi direction, and the facts could no longer be denied by reasonable men. The record was made very clear. But in the process of making the record clear the center of attention was always Eichmann. It was Eichmann on trial — not the Nazis or the German people or the world as a whole that sat idly by. It was Eichmann who was convicted — not the Nazis or the German people or the world as a whole. And that is the danger — that he become the scapegoat for all the guilty, and the blame for the whole mess be shifted onto him. He will be considered guilty, and with his hanging the score is even and everyone else smugly satisfied that justice is done. But if the trial leaves the impression that Eichmann is thus mainly responsible, then the main lessons of it all, of collective guilt, may be lost — the lesson of what can happen in this world even at the hands of a supposedly civilized nation, the lesson of how seemingly cultured people can be misled and can contribute to injustice and cruelty, of how a whole nation can become morally diseased and do evil. That lesson is needed for the sake of the future. The elimination of one psychotic monster will not protect the world from future disaster. There must be an awareness of the need for constant vigilance on the part of nations as a whole. There must be the realization that guilt is widely distributed and not confined to an Eichmann or a Hitler alone. The very nature of the trial, however, because only one man was sitting in court and being judged, already tends to give the impression of a single man being guilty. But perhaps in being circumspect about the punishment we can yet demonstrate to the world that the punishment of one man does not yet wipe the slate clean, that Eichmann condemned does not absolve the world and has not eliminated the danger, and that it is our total society that must learn to discipline itself.
 
This is my reaction to the death penalty imposed upon Eichmann and in keeping with this line of thought there is a suggestion that has been made that bears consideration. The Arab Greek Catholic Archbishop in Israel is reported as suggesting that Israel might give Eichmann a life sentence and then send him back to Germany where he ought to be put on trial again and punished. “If the death sentence should be given, let it be given in Germany not in Israel.” It strikes me as a wonderful idea. Israel has now tried Eichmann and brought out the facts. There is no possible way of punishing him or his fellow Nazis. But sending him to Germany for another trial which the German government would have to order, would be to make the German people that much more aware of their own guilt. Let them hear recounted among themselves what they have done and let them sentence the beast. They could hardly try to whitewash him before the world as matters stand, and in trying him and punishing him themselves perhaps the realization of what they have done would be driven home sufficiently to achieve some kind of repentance among them. What happens to Eichmann really matters very little. And if Germany even let him go what does it matter? He will at best walk this earth with the mark of Cain on his brow, and be a constant reminder to all of the evil we must guard against. And perhaps some lasting good for the world will come out of the challenge to Germany to punish their own and expiate their own guilt.
 
Having said all this, I am content to let the matter rest. I do not think there should be any extensive public debate or outcry concerning this. The less attention we call to Eichmann the better. The problem is not Eichmann but man's inhumanity to man. And the attention of the world should not be diverted from the major problem. If Israel chooses to change the sentence — well and good. If not, I regret it but am willing to leave it to the judgment of the Israeli court and to the people who suffered at his hand to make the final decision without complications from the outside.
 
It is the guilt of Nazi-ism and the world that tolerated it that must be emphasized, not the punishment of Eichmann. It is not the fate of one man but the innocent six million that should concern us. And what is important about the trial and its outcome is only that there must be a heightened determination to keep the peace of the world in the future and to prevent a recurrence of the sadism which degraded the dignity of man, the persecuted and the persecutor alike.
 

[1] Otto Adolf Eichmann (1906 – 1962) was a lieutenant colonel in the German Nazi SS and one of the major organizers of the Holocaust. Eichmann was charged with facilitating and managing the logistics of mass deportation of Jews to ghettos and extermination camps in German-occupied Eastern Europe during World War II. In 1960, he was captured in Argentina by Mossad, Israel's intelligence service. Following a widely publicized trial in Israel, he was found guilty of war crimes. On December 15, 1961, about a month before this sermon was delivered, Eichmann was sentenced to death, but the verdict was under appeal until the end of May 1962. Eichmann was hanged on June 1, 1962.

[2] William Lovell Hull (1897 – 1992) was a Canadian minister who moved to Jerusalem, Palestine in 1935 devoting the next 27 years to missionary. In 1947, he influenced the Canadian member of the UN Special Committee on Palestine to support the UN Partition Plan for Palestine, which was among the factors in the creation of the State of Israel. In 1962, Hull was the spiritual counselor for Adolf Eichmann.


[3] Martin Buber (1878 – 1965) was an Austrian-born Israeli Jewish philosopher best known for his philosophy of dialogue, a form of existentialism centered on the distinction between the I–Thou relationship and the I–It relationship.

[4] Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (1884 – 1963) was a historian, Labor Zionist leader and the second and longest-serving President of Israel, serving from 1952 to 1963.

[5] Moshe Landau (1912 – 2011) was an Israeli jurist. He was the fifth President of the Supreme Court of Israel, and one of three judges, including Benjamin Halevy and Yitzhak Raveh, who presided over the Eichmann trial.