In this article in The New York Times on Mossad's capture of Adolf Eichmann, the concluding line is as follows.

Not only does it contract the barbarism of the Holocaust into a single, indelible form; it also looks forward, and serves as a quiet commendation of the troubled institution built to prosecute the Eichmanns of our own age. That is the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which the United States — and Israel too — refuse to join.

I'm not entirely sure what it is trying to say. The part before the semicolon is quite clear - Adolf Eichmann being prosecuted as a personification of the Holocaust - but the what comes after is what puzzles me.

  • Which bit puzzles you, precisely? You'll have to be more explicit than that... – marcellothearcane Aug 5 '17 at 14:02

The writer is using the glass box as a figurative lens or mirror. Eichmann, as an administrator of the Final Solution, is the focus when one looks back in time at the Holocaust. He has physically occupied the box. One can then look through this lens in the other direction and see other war criminals, from Yugoslovia, Rwanda, Cambodia, and so many other places. These criminals, the simile implies, should have occupied similar boxes.

That image allows Farago (the writer) to transition to the legal mechanisms developed after Eichmann's abduction and trial. He then scolds the US and Israeli governments for not supporting the International Criminal Court (ICC), for reasons that are beyond the scope of this question.

| improve this answer | |
  • Hat's off to an analysis smooth, impartial, and concise. – Yosef Baskin Aug 4 '17 at 4:39

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.