But there was a contrast even more decisive than a hunger for fact between the Trial in Jerusalem and those in Moscow and New York. In each of the last, the trial marked the beginning of a new course: in Moscow the liquidation of the Old Bolsheviks and the tightening of Stalin's dictatorship; in the United States the initiation of militant anti Communism, with the repentant ex Communist in the vanguard. These trials were properly termed ``political cases'' in that the trial itself was a political act producing political consequences. But what could the Eichmann Trial initiate? Of what new course could it mark the beginning? The Eichmann case looked to the past, not to the future. It was the conclusion of the first phase of a process of tragic recollection, and of refining the recollection, that will last as long as there are Jews. As such, it was beyond politics and had no need of justification by a ``message.''

``It is not an individual that is in the dock at this historical trial'' -- said Ben Gurion, ``and not the Nazi regime alone -- but anti-Semitism throughout history.'' How could supplying Eichmann with a platform on which to maintain that one could collaborate in the murder of millions of Jews without being an anti-Semite contribute to a verdict against anti-Semitism? And if it was not an individual who was in the dock, why was the Trial, as we shall observe later, all but scuttled in the attempt to prove Eichmann a ``fiend?'' These questions touch the root of confusion in the prosecution's case.