After listening to this, it's clear why it's been so controversial since it was first published. Hannah Arendt reports on the Eichmann trial but she makes it clear that she doesn't buy the Israeli prosecutor's argument that Eichmann is a sadistic monster and her argument brings up a lot of moral gray area that I personally found fascinating. Arendt argues that Eichmann was far less intelligent than he's been given credit for and disturbing not because he actively sought to kill Jews but because he mindlesslly and obediently followed orders and could have been any of a number of people in Nazi Germany. His very banality is what makes him so disturbing and it was interesting to see how Arendt questions the general assumptions about Eichmann. I think that a lot of readers take this to mean that she's minimizing Eichmann's role but I really don't think that was her intent. Arendt in no way apologizes for him but she does ask very pointed (and important) questions about the political nature of Eichmann's trial and his culpability. I imagine pro-Zionist readers would have a particularly hard time with what she says. I thought the best part of the book is in the epiogue, where she creates her own address for Eichmann that she wishes the court had made, one that takes into account that he was "just following orders" and addresses the legal problems of genocide and how to address the aftermath. Eichmann in Jerusalem is a very interesting book that made me want to read more about Eichmann and the trial but it asks many more questions than it answers.