Since late 1947, Zionist Jews have been waging genocide against Palestinian Arabs. By all that is logical, this atrocity should have dominated our news and those responsible should already have been tried and convicted of war crimes. The fact that this hasn’t happened is entirely due to the Perverse Paradox of Great Crime.
Great Crime, as opposed to petty or even serious crime, is not committed by a single person or group of people that can be singled out for punishment, nor is it a transient phenomenon—it is a crime of political and religious culture. Each successive generation is indoctrinated with the same moral absolutes and self-serving histories that depict the Great Crime as a virtuous liberation struggle.
In this way, guilt for the crime becomes internalized as a shared value and becomes hard-wired into our consciousness. This is the key point: Those who seek justice for the victims of Great Crime find themselves fighting not for justice but against an entire culture of denial. Instead of being seen as defenders of law and order, critics of Great Crime are vilified as unpatriotic, evil, anti-Western or deranged.
This perversity is especially evident in the portrayal of the victims of Great Crime not as people, but as a statistic. The Great Crime for Stalin was the starvation of some 10 million Ukrainians, a man-made horror that dwarfs the Nazi holocaust. The Isramerican analog to Stalin’s dictum is: “The death of a single Jew is a tragedy; the death and dispossession of millions of Arabs is a statistic.”
Because so many people and interest groups have spent so much energy propping up the Great Crime of Israel, it is impossible to admit error, without making a lie of the past half century of violence. To preserve the lie and sabotage the truth, pro-Isramerican governments and mainstream media present a whitewashed, sanitized perspective on the Middle East to negate, or at least minimize, Arab suffering and the validity Arab political arguments.
Were it not for the worldwide web, this task might not face much opposition, but anyone with an Internet connection and IQ above room temperature can expose the bankruptcy of this cover-up. The net effect of this democratic enlightenment has been the radicalization of Great Crime propaganda to the point where those charged with defending it are going to increasingly preposterous lengths to discredit the voices of informed dissent. Of course, the media has been only too willing to oblige.
When Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denigrated the legitimacy of Israel and the dogmatic verities of the holocaust, the voices of Isramerica freaked out in unison—not because he was wrong, but because he was right. Defamatory drivel like that offered up by Maclean’s magazine was pretty much the standard media response. Governments in unison reflexively denounced Ahmadinejad. The Polish government even refused to allow Iran to send a team to conduct investigations into Nazi concentration camps, which is hard to comprehend if the zionist version of reality were true.
Now the campaign against Ahmadinejad has reached a new level of absurdity. The European Jewish Congress has filed a complaint in the International Criminal Court to have Ahmadinejad tried for incitement to genocide, and it will submit a formal request to the European Parliament asking its member states to declare Ahmadinejad persona non grata. EJC Chairman Pierre Besnainou justified these actions in the name of European laws that make it a crime to deny the Nazi genocide.
Without this keystone of Jewish victimhood, it would not be possible to continue to deny the Zionist genocide in Palestine. The fact that Ahmadinejad has said nothing that could remotely be considered genocidal is irrelevant, since honesty is the real enemy. But truly laughable is the idea that Europe should declare Ahmadinejad persona non grata.
In 2003, you will recall, a Belgian court ruled that the country could try Ariel Sharon for war crimes because of his personal responsibility for the 1982 massacre of hundreds of Palestinians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps near Beirut. Sharon’s guilt is beyond question, since Israel’s own Kahane Commission was the one that determined he bore personal responsibility.
Holding an Israeli leader accountable to international law could not be allowed because of the need to defend the Great Crime. Donald Rumsfeld, Bush’s Obergruppenführer for Zionist Active Measures, blackmailed Belgium into rewriting its laws or else risk having NATO build its new headquarters in Warsaw instead of Brussels. At length, the Belgians capitulated, and its Supreme Court ruled that the country had no jurisdiction.
Daniel Shek, director of European Affairs at the Israeli Foreign Ministry hailed the decision: “It’s a lawsuit that started with more politics than law and it is lucky that the outcome is more law than politics.”
That this statement is a smug lie should need little explanation, since Sharon is exactly the type of criminal who should be tried. In contrast to Sharon, who actually committed war crimes, Ahmadinejad has done nothing except make aggressive statements. Unlike the case against Sharon, the case against Ahmadinejad is pure politics.
Second, in what must be the grossest act of hypocrisy imaginable, Sharon suggested that Iran be expelled from the UN. Iran is a member in good standing; Israel, though, is not and is in no position to pass judgment on anyone. It is the only “state” given a conditional admission to the UN, and it has not lived up to these conditions.
The evidence to support Israel’s expulsion is unassailable. On May 11, 1949, Israel joined the UN according to the terms of UNGA Res. 273, which states:
“Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 [UNGA Res. 181 “The Partition Plan”] and 11 December 1948 [UNGA Res. 194] and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representatives of the Government of Israel before the Ad Hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions, The General Assembly… decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations” (emphasis added).
UNGA Res. 194, “Creation of a Conciliation Commission for Palestine,” outlines Israel’s responsibility to Palestinians made homeless by the zionist invasion:
“[The General Assembly] resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid or the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible…” (Para. 11)
Now we come to the Great Crime itself.
From Nov. 29, 1947, to May 15, 1948 Zionist forces under the authority of the Jewish Agency dispossessed more than 300,000 Palestinians so that incoming Jews could seize their land. By December 1948, 418 Arab villages had been destroyed, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency registered 726,000 Palestinian refugees. Walter Eytan, Director-General of Israel’s Foreign Ministry, accepted this figure as “meticulous,” and even suggested that the number was closer to 800,000—a mere statistic.
Sympathy for Israel because of the holocaust would be impossible if it were widely known that Jews have been committing a holocaust of their own, and so defence of the Great Crime stipulates that one holocaust cannot be criticized under penalty of law, whereas another cannot be admitted.
To borrow a movie metaphor, we all live in the Israeli Matrix—a false reality enforced by zionist sentinels and agents. Only those of us who take the red pill can put an end to the Great Crime and our unspoken complicity.