Analysis of Jonathan Pollard's Espionage Episode

This book takes place sometime during the 1960s after the Second World War. Some Germans would rather forget it ever happened than acknowledge the disgraceful events that took place during World War II “Adolf Eichmann's trial began on April 11, 1961 in Jerusalem, Israel. Eichmann was

In my opinion, the author gives an interesting logic to the audience. More often than not, we tend to judge people without knowing more about them. Actually, in most cases, we tend to stereotype them according to the shallow information we have about the general character of their background. We rarely pause and ask ourselves why they behave like that. We just pass judgment, which mostly is usually biased and reasoned according to our background. No time is given to them to give their side of the story; our summary judgment is usually final. “’Jew bastards will charge me if you break anything’ he cursed” (70). Without any prior knowledge

Furthermore, the involvement and conflict-resolution approaches of the international community during the South-African ordeal differed greatly from those of today, since Israel has a more complex relationship with the United-States than South-Africa ever did and an international boycott of Israel would ultimately fail as it would be interpreted as a repetition of the Holocaust, which began with the simple slogan “Don’t buy from the Jews” and which no one in their right mind desires today! (5)

In the process of making decisions, they discover things about themselves they never knew before. Hiram made many important decisions in this book that revealed characteristics about him that were unknown in the beginning of the book. His decision to testify against the opposing side showed that Hiram wasn’t racist like his grandfather, but someone who believed justice should be for those who deserved it. After reflecting upon matters, Hiram declared that “I was gonna do what was right” ( Crowe 154), which gives an idea of his identity. Almost always, the decisions show who people are and help identify themselves. Morally wrong decisions cast a negative light, whereas good decisions cast us in a positive one. Moreover, Hiram states that “the trial of his killers might be the start of things, might be a small step to making a life for Negroes in the South ..better”(Crowe 154). With this statement, Hiram can be identified as an egalitarian and unbiased person. What point is trying to be crossed is that people make decisions in life that help them mold into they person are

aspects of his arguments. Anti-Semitism is highly immoral and even though it was legal, should

mysteries which occurred in 1953 was the electrocution of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg under the Espionage Act. They were convicted for giving the secret information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union. The anti-communist sentiment that characterized the Cold War and McCarthyism led to their trial and execution. Even though there is some evidence of the Rosenbergs' guilt, numerous facts which were discovered after the death of Ethel and Julius argue more convincingly that they were innocent victims of Cold War hysteria.

In her book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt uses the life and trial of Adolf Eichmann to explore man's responsibility for evils committed under orders or as a result of the law. Due to the fact that she believed that Eichmann was neither anti-Semitic, nor a psychopath, Arendt was widely criticized for treating Eichmann too sympathetically. Still, her work on the Eichmann trial is among the most respected works on the issue to date.

He hated Otto frank because they never had a good relationship. First off, he was a jew. Second, they never had a good relationship. Calling Otto a Jew just isn't enough. But what went really over the line was most definitely,

Schindler broke the law by treating the Jewish people better than the Nazi’s wanted them to

The term “Covert Action” brings with it a connotation of shadowy figures wrapped in secrecy and intrigue. It also brings with it a substantial amount of moral questions as to “what is right.” The use of covert action has been widely publicized since the early seventies, but trying to find out the truth to these events has been difficult to say the least. What is even more difficult, is historically recording these events into categories of successes or failures. These operations are difficult to dissect because of their secrecy and although events have been recorded, some facts simply aren’t apparent. This paper will seek to identify the complex issues associated with covert operations.

Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (N.S.A) subcontractor turned whistle-blower is nothing short of a hero. His controversial decision to release information detailing the highly illegal ‘data mining’ practices of the N.S.A have caused shockwaves throughout the world and have raised important questions concerning how much the government actually monitors its people without their consent or knowledge. Comparable to Mark Felt in the Watergate scandals, Daniel Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers, Edward Snowden joins the rank of infamous whistleblowers who gave up their jobs, livelihood, and forever will live under scrutiny of the public all in the service to the American people. Edward Snowden released information detailing the

Privacy has endured throughout human history as the pillar upon which our authentic nature rests. Yet, in an age darkened by the looming shadow of terrorism, another force threatens to dominate the skyline and obscure the light of liberty behind promises of safety and security: government surveillance. As an employee of the NSA, Edward Snowden broke his vow of secrecy to inform the public of our government’s furtive surveillance acts, but does this render him traitorous? To answer this, we must first ask ourselves, traitorous to whom? When the very institution established to protect our fundamental liberties intrudes on our privacy from behind a veil of secrecy, should such informed individuals resign from judicious autonomy and

It seemed that at times he was realizing that the evidence brought up against his father was true, but he would not admit it. It made me pity him because he has this belief about his father being a decent man, but he was anything but. He would just keep making excuses for his father’s actions. His proof that his father was a good man is from documents people wrote about the good character of his father, and he will not accept anything else. Even with the proof that his father knew what was going to happen to the Jews and Poles of Lemberg, he still goes on about how it was a different time and thought it was horrible that his father was forced into it.

Although the first tables were not in the main purpose of the study, the data sets they present describe demographic numbers of the respondents with regard to their experience in the state and military offices of the Israeli nation. This would ensure validity of results of the surveys based on knowledge of the subject question. The findings acquired from the surveys was cross-analyzed with the data collected from multiple literature, archived records and study reports on the Yom Kippur War to form a pattern that was consistent with past findings, which concur that indeed that intelligence information was inaccurately evaluated by political and military intelligence leaders of Israel resulting in flawed decisions in the 1973 Yom Kippur

Studying Eichmann's relationships with Jews previous to his involvement in the Final Solution become counterintuitive when looking for any sign of hatred he embodied toward the Jewish culture. "It is obvious there is no case of insane hatred of Jews, of fanatical anti-Semitism or indoctrination of any kind" (26). Furthermore, he was related to Jews, as his mother had Jewish relatives.