History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
He "could have". But he was there for decades. So what happened?
The obvious trade-off the Mossad faced was that an overt operation might have alerted him and allowed him to escape. Covert operations insured that he didn't. So are you saying that the Eichmann abduction was wrong? Or that there was no trade off to face?
While we're at it, are ALL covert ops wrong? I'm a little unclear how one conducts covert ops in compliance with the laws of the country in which they're taking place. The reason they're covert is that they *violate* the law of the host country. Is this a moral problem or a mere commonplace?
What you've discovered here is that things that aren't governed by law...aren't governed by law. Very true. You might as well argue that the Normandy landing was wrong because it violated German (or French) law, or that the Afghan war was wrong because the Taliban opposed it.
By the way, does terrorism not exist? Is there a particular reason that word appears in scare quotes?
Yeah, the nerve of those Mossad people. Remember the time they kidnapped that guy Adolph Eichmann right out of Argentina? People should be arrested for stuff like that.
Eichman was on an international wanted list. He could have been turned over to Int'l authorities.
Recall the people mistakenly killed in Europe by Mossad agents on the prowl.