In Eichmann before Jerusalem, Bettina Stangneth analyzes the Nazi official’s interviews and writings from the time he spent in Argentina between the end of World War II and his capture by Israel’s Mossad. Besides decisively refuting Hannah Arendt’s celebrated thesis that Eichmann was a mindless bureaucrat, Stangneth uncovers his burning admiration for the Islamic world, and his belief that it would pick up where the Nazis left off. Douglas Murray writes:

Eichmann [wrote in his unfinished memoir] that if he himself were ever found guilty of any crime it would only be “for political reasons.” He tries to argue that a guilty verdict against him would be “an impossibility in international law” but goes on to say that he could never obtain justice “in the so-called Western culture.” The reason for this is obvious enough: because in the Christian Bible “to which a large part of Western thought clings, it is expressly established that everything sacred came from the Jews.” Western culture has, for Eichmann, been irrevocably Judaized. And so Eichmann looks to a different group, to the “large circle of friends, many millions of people” to whom this [memoir] is aimed.

That “‘large circle of friends’” comprised, in Eichmann’s words, “the 360 million Muhammadans” whose Quran he much preferred to the Jewish and Christian scriptures. And here, writes Murray, we confront “the only strain of Nazi history which really remains strong to this day.” He concludes, quoting Stangneth,

Eichmann refused to do penance and longed for applause. But first and foremost, of course, he hoped his “Arab friends” would continue his battle against the Jews who were always the “principal war criminals” and “principal aggressors.” He hadn’t managed to complete his task of “total annihilation,” but the Muslims could still complete it for him.

In October, a young Mauritanian national murdered an Orthodox Jewish man on his way to synagogue in Chicago. This alone should be sufficient sign of the rising dangers of anti-Semitism. Nathan Diament explains how the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act (AAA) can, if passed, make American Jews safer:

We were off to a promising start when the AAA sailed through the House of Representatives in the spring by a generous vote of 320 to 91, and 30 senators from both sides of the aisle jumped to sponsor the Senate version. Then the bill ground to a halt.

Fearful of antagonizing their left-wing activist base and putting vulnerable senators on the record, especially right before the November election, Democrats delayed bringing the AAA to the Senate floor for a vote. Now, the election is over, but the political games continue.

You can’t combat anti-Semitism if you can’t—or won’t—define it. Modern anti-Semites hide their hate behind virulent anti-Zionism. . . . The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act targets this loophole by codifying that the Department of Education must use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of anti-Semitism in its application of Title VI.