________________________

Click the ad above to go to the "I'm there for you baby" website
 

Many people have the view that the early adherents to Nazism were the “rejects” of their society.  They often liken them to today’s “skinheads.”  While this is, of course, true for some of the Nazi followers, it is not true for all, and it certainly was not true of Eichmann.  He had an ordinary and happy home life.  While not the best academic student, he did well enough to get by. Eichmann was handsome and popular enough to have friends in and out of school.  His work life was satisfactory enough that he was not fired from jobs. In fact, as a young adult he worked for a Jewish employer and had Jewish social contacts until 1933 and he was related via his stepmother to Jews in Vienna.  Thus, according to Cesarani, it is likely that initially Eichmann was not a rabid anti-Semite.

In the late 1920’s, Eichmann looked upon the local Nazis as undesirables and outsiders. He was socialized and politicized in a right wing Protestant German nationalist milieu.  Eventually the Nazi Party began to make some electoral inroads and achieve some respectability; it is then that he joined the Sicherheitsdienst-security control service (SD)When he joined, the SD it was a weak, under-funded and marginal party organization with no particular platform to deal with Jewish affairs.

Eventually the SD was handed the task of dealing with Jewish matters. And, Eichmann was recruited to the newly created Jewish Department of the SD.  The leader of the department, Edler von Mildenstein, encouraged Eichmann to learn all he could about Zionism and the “Jewish Question” in Germany.  Mildenstein thought the SD should propose the orderly Jewish emigration to Palestine. Consequently, “Eichmann had extensive contacts with Jews in Zionist organizations in Germany,” in 1936 and 1937.  Eichmann met with a Palestinian Jew who proposed that the Nazis and Zionists work together to increase Jewish emigration to Palestine.  In 1937, Eichmann visited the Middle East to explore these possibilities.  He briefly visited the future Jewish homeland, Israel.

At this stage in his life, Eichmann had a relatively benign view of Zionism with a somewhat “classical” anti-Semitic worldview.  He believed that a world Jewish conspiracy existed against Germany.  Like his comrades in the SD, Eichmann viewed Jews as the enemy. He could work with individual Jews, like those in organizations that were working with him to get Jews to emigrate to Palestine, yet he would work tirelessly to rid the Reich of its Jewish inhabitants and combat the “power of a mythical world Jewry.”

After the Nazi invasion of Poland and eventually the Soviet Union, it became perfectly clear that a consensus on a “final solution” had been unofficially reached in Nazi Germany. The slaughtering of thousands of innocent Jews, Rom, and political dissidents would be the business of the day.  Eichmann’s emigration talents would not be needed.  Now, his area of expertise shifted.  Where could we send them?  Madagascar?  Soviet Union? 

By late 1941 or early 1942, it became clear that neither Madagascar nor the Soviet Union were places where they could warehouse the captive Jewish prisoners.  Extermination became the order of the day.  Eichmann, who had attended the Wannsee Conference at which it was believed Nazi officialdom made the determination to murder all of Europe’s Jewry, was given a key role in the organization of the murder machinery.  As he explained later, he felt ‘satisfaction’ in the role he played at the conference.  The ‘popes’ of the regime had made a decision for genocide and as a mere subordinate he could wash his hands of any responsibility.

Eichmann knew that mass killing was taking place in the east.  He knew that different Schutzstaffel- “defense squadron” (SS)- cadres were taking the lead there.  While he was “genuinely” distressed by what he saw of mass shootings and gassings, it wasn’t because Jews were killed.  It was because “it threatened the end of the policy of emigration and deportation that he had led and perfected.” This was a pivotal point in the life of Adolf Eichmann.  Like so many other perpetrators, Eichmann was not a ‘natural born killer’. He went from being an expert on Jewish matters to the man who arranged the deportation of millions to their deaths.  Eichmann had to learn what it meant to be a genocidaire and then chose to be one.

His most demonic self appeared in 1944.  It was the horrifying and macabre events in Hungary that exposed the “new” Eichmann.  In a matter of a few months 437,000 Jews were ghettoized and deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau, where three-quarters of them were immediately murdered. It was here that he toyed with world Jewry.  Eichmann infamously offered to spare a million Jews for 10,000 trucks!  Of course, he wasn’t serious.

It was known, and it came out at his trial, that Eichmann was proud to have been able to kill so many of the enemy.  He said this while living in Argentina, after 1950.  He was not repentant at his trial and was shocked that he was given the death sentence.  How could he be guilty?  He was just following orders.  The last day of his life he talked with a minister, a minister that had been seeing and counseling him for several months.  He told the minister that he was prepared to die and did not need to repent.  He had done nothing wrong.  He was just following orders.

The trial of Eichmann by Israel created a storm of protest from the Argentinean government.  Israeli commandos went to Argentina, followed Eichmann and ferreted him out of the country. In doing this, Israel, according to Argentina and some other countries, had broken international law.  What right did Israel have in trying Eichmann for war crimes when it didn’t exist during the killing years of the 1930’s and 1940’s?   Shouldn’t West Germany try him as a war criminal?  By 1961, hadn’t the statute of limitations run its course?

The trial took place in Jerusalem, Israel in 1961.  Much of the world did not want to be reminded of the Nazi era.  Many, especially in Germany, didn’t want to bring up that era because they knew former Nazis held positions of power in the West German government.  Young people throughout the world, including Germany and Israel, knew little to nothing of the Holocaust.  The trial changed all of that.  They learned of the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis.  They learned of Eichmann’s role in it and they learned it was important to question authority.

Cesarani’s book, the first account of Eichmann’s life to appear since the famous trial in 1961 and his subsequent execution a year later, is based in part on testimony from Eichmann’s trial.

This "study" of Eichmann's psychology and motivations is based on a composite of information about his life.  It is important to examine him more in depth. The essential question: How can a man be responsible for (and proud of his role in) the murder ofmillions of fellow human beings and feel no regret or remorse for it when confronted with the evil of his deeds and execution through this trial? How do we become immune to feelings of compassion for our fellow humanity? What forces within a society and within the psychological make-up of individuals create the Eichmanns of the world, which exist still today?

Does studying Eichmann help us to avoid a repeat of genocide?  We can only hope so.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the President wants to convene this international meeting sometime in the fall to provide international support to the bilateral efforts that the Palestinians and the Israelis are making and that we hope will intensify. I will note that, again, that Prime Minister Olmert has said that he is ready to discuss fundamental issues that will lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state, and I think there should be a deepening of the dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis on all of the issues that will lead ultimately to the foundation of a Palestinian – the founding of a Palestinian state.

I noted that it is – that many people with whom I spoke in the region said that they wanted to make certain that this conference, this meeting, was one that would be substantive, that would be meaningful, that would really advance the two-state solution.
That was the comment from the Saudi Foreign Minister, for instance. And Prime Minister Olmert told me last night that he too shared that view that this was a meeting that ought to be and needs to be substantive and meaningful and that will, in fact, help to get to a two-state solution.

The President of the United States has no desire to call people together for a photo op. This is to call people together so that we can really advance the Palestinian – Palestinian statehood. Now, we have a lot of work to do between now and the fall, but I am here to consult and have discussions about the meeting, but also to see what we can do to help advance the bilateral track. And I can assure you that between now and the convening of the meeting this probably won’t be my last trip to the region. So we look forward to a really meaningful meeting.

QUESTION: I have two questions, one for Secretary Rice and one for President Abu Mazen. Madame Secretary, you came into office – yes, two. You came into office pledging to push democracy and push for the Palestinian legislative elections that brought Hamas to power. What should Palestinian voters make of the fact that the Bush Administration refused to meet with Ismail Haniya, their democratically elected prime minister, but that you just spent an hour with Salam Fayyad, the new prime minister who was not elected, at a time when the Administration maintains it’s still promoting democracy?

And for President Abu Mazen, do you foresee a time when you might return to a political accommodation with Hamas in order to represent all of the Palestinian people?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, Helene, let me begin by saying that President Abbas actually does represent all of the Palestinian people. He was elected as the President of all of the Palestinian people and he has been recognized widely internationally, not just by the United States, as the president of all the Palestinian people. I would note too that the President appointed a government that is widely recognized as legitimate in governing for the Palestinian people.

Now, as to elections, we believe strongly in the ability and the will and the desire of people to express themselves in elections. But those who were elected then have responsibilities to govern responsibly. And one of the ways that you govern responsibly is to govern within certain international norms of respectability, and among those norms is to accept the agreements that past governments or past leaderships have signed onto. And one of the things that was asked by the Quartet of the Palestinians, all Palestinians who were elected, including Hamas, was that they commit themselves to the fundamental principles for peace; that is, recognition of the right of the other party in peace talks to exist, not the recognition of that party, just the right of that party to exist. Secondly, that there needs to be a renunciation of violence because you can’t have one foot in the camp of terror and one foot in the camp of politics. And third, that there would be a recognition and acceptance of all of the agreements that Palestinian leaders have signed on behalf of the Palestinian people for more than a decade.

And so it’s on that basis that the United States has made its decisions about who is governing in accordance with international norms and therefore deserves the support of the United States. And I might note again it’s not just the position of the United States; it is a widely held international position, including by the Quartet. But this President is the legitimate president of the Palestinian people, all the Palestinian people, no matter where they live, whether it’s in the West Bank or in Gaza.

QUESTION: I think she asked -- President Abu Mazen, do you foresee a time where you might come to a political accommodation with Hamas?

PRESIDENT ABBAS: (Via interpreter) Hamas has committed what I would say a major crime as it precipitated a coup against legitimacy. Those who perpetrated the coup against legitimacy are members of the government, the Prime Minister and others, other members of the cabinet and the legislative council. And this coup does not give any opportunities for any dialogue and hence we said and we still say they have to reverse and return everything they did. They have to reverse all the things that they did to the conditions before. And they have to apologize to the Palestinian people and then we would – we might consider.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Your Excellency Mr. President, to what extent are you willing to negotiate with Israelis about the declaration of principles as Prime Minister Olmert wishes to go and negotiate in the fall meeting based on these principles?

And Dr. Rice, to what extent will the Arab initiative be a base for negotiations or discussions on the fall conference?

PRESIDENT ABBAS: (Via interpreter) As for the negotiations with the Israeli part, it is known what principles we base on, which are, in general, the roadmap, which includes two main issues, which are President Bush’s vision and the Arab initiative. These include all the issues that may be discussed for the final status, hence we will be discussing or focusing on means of implementing these principles which were mentioned in the roadmap which have become a UN Security Council resolution. When we end, possibly within the – in a framework agreement or a declaration of principles or anything, the important thing is that we reach in the end all we realize we know what will be the outcome and what is the ceiling where we should reach. For the phases of implementation, these are things that we can agree on.

SECRETARY RICE: And I think that the President has said that he sees the Arab initiative as a positive element and as one element in helping move forward to a two-state solution. We have encouraged, for instance, the Arab League to do precisely what the Arab League did, which was to send representatives to talk with the Israelis about the Arab initiative. And it is one of, I think, several bases, several documents, several elements that can help us point toward a two-state solution and toward a regional peace between Israel and its neighbors.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, to follow up on a couple of things. When you say that Prime Minister Olmert is ready to talk about fundamental principles, what do you understand those to be and what would you like to see on the table as the two go forward? And would you like to see President Abbas hold new elections anytime soon?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the matter of when to hold new elections is a matter for the President and for the Palestinian people. As to the discussions, the bilateral discussions, I take it that the Prime Minister and the President are going to meet frequently. I take it that they are going to deepen their dialogue. I believe that the word “fundamental” speaks for itself. And the desire to move toward a two-state solution seems to me to be there on both sides, and there are a lot of issues that are going to have to be discussed in order to get to a two-state solution.

But I do believe that this is a time when it is best for the United States to encourage the parties to these discussions and I’m doing so, and I’m doing so privately to make American views known of how those discussions might proceed. But ultimately, it’s the parties that will carry them out.

“People of all political stripes are coming out against this deal,” said Rep. Weiner. “It’s mind-bogglingly bad policy because the Saudi’s at every turn have been uncooperative.  The idea that we are going to reward the Saudi’s with precision weaponry is a stunningly bad idea.”

“The letter we are sending to the President today is proof that Congress will not turn a blind eye to the Bush Administration rewarding the Saudis’ repeated efforts to frustrate U.S goals in Iraq and in the global war on terror.  Instead, we in Congress will take action to stop this misguided deal to transfer $20 billion in U.S. weapons technology and material to Saudi Arabia,” said Congressman Mike Ferguson.

The letter to President Bush reads as follows:

We are writing to express our deep opposition to the proposed sale of high technology armaments to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.   If a sale containing weapons for Saudi Arabia is proposed to Congress under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, we intend to vote to stop it.

Saudi Arabia has not behaved like an ally of the United States.  They have exported fighters and suicide bombers to the war in Iraq.  They have provided funding for terrorist activities throughout the world.  And the Saudis have refused to play a constructive role in the West Bank and Gaza.

The United States should not send potentially destabilizing weapons to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 

Members who signed the letter saying they will vote to stop this arms deal are listed on the following chart: