AMONG MANY widely embraced illusions about the history of the Middle East and American diplomacy in general is that Dr. Henry A. Kissinger is or ever was a brilliant statesman.
What Kissinger has always been, and remains at age 98, is a brilliant self-promoter. His more than 3,000 pages of self-aggrandizing published memoirs—a record unmatched in the annals of American diplomacy—reflect an ego trip befitting a man famous for his “shuttle diplomacy.”
Millions of Americans have been taken in by Kissinger’s Harvard credentials, his deft manipulation of the news media and his gravelly Old World-accent that supposedly resonates the wisdom of the ages. The latest of Kissinger’s easily duped admirers is the Israeli apologist Martin Indyk, the author of the recent book Master of the Game: Henry Kissinger and the Art of Middle East Diplomacy. In this astonishingly shallow book, as well as a recent webinar sponsored by the Middle East Institute, Indyk lauds Kissinger for his step-by-step approach to Middle East diplomacy, which he credits with giving rise to the Oslo “peace process.” The Oslo framework—a fraud that has enabled the ongoing and illegal settler occupation of Palestine—has been thoroughly discredited, yet Indyk argues with a straight face that it offers the only viable path to peace. None of this is a surprise, as Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, has long been a member in good standing of the Israel lobby and a cheerleader for Zionist state aggression and the repression of Palestinians. One can expect nothing less—he was first executive director of AIPAC’s think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).
Even Indyk admits that when Kissinger entered the Nixon White House, he was a Eurocentric “Orientalist” who “didn’t know anything about the Arab world by his own admission.” On the other hand, Kissinger was a dedicated Zionist, which had led him to visit Israel six times prior to his executive appointment. Kissinger—like Indyk and a series of U.S. diplomats, from Dennis Ross to Secretary of State Antony Blinken today—sided unequivocally with Israel and against justice for Palestinians.
Indyk showers credit on Kissinger for bailing out Israel in the October 1973 war and for his subsequent much glorified shuttle diplomacy, while glossing over the fact that Kissinger had sabotaged Secretary of State William Rogers’ peace plan based on U.N. Resolution 242, in the aftermath of the June 1967 war. By pushing Rogers aside, the ever-opportunistic Kissinger took over his job in the Nixon and later Ford White Houses.
Indyk chides Kissinger for not pursuing a “Jordanian solution” to the Palestine conflict, but Kissinger had no interest in Palestine, which, as he explained in 1974, was “not an American interest, because we don’t care if Israel keeps the West Bank if it can get away with it. So, we won’t push it.” Here we see the real Kissinger—utterly disdainful of the U.N., the Palestinian quest for peace, justice and human rights, just as he disdained the cause of other dark-skinned peoples across the world, including millions of Asians, Latin Americans and Africans.
In 1975, Kissinger expressed regret albeit privately, explaining, “I am sorry that I did not support the Rogers effort” to forge a peace accord. He acknowledged that a diplomatic agreement with Egypt could have been negotiated that “would have prevented the 1973 war.” Kissinger thus admitted that his ignorance and disdain for the Arab and Palestinian position had precluded a peace accord and brought on a major war. Failing to prevent war and further militarizing the Middle East conflict were the hallmarks of Kissinger’s failed statesmanship.
Both Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford made sporadic attempts to act as honest brokers in the Middle East, occurrences that left Kissinger caught between the administrations and Israel. When Israel and the lobby publicly criticized Kissinger amid a dispute over military resupply during the short-lived Ford administration, Kissinger in a “crying voice” prostrated himself before the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Simcha Dinitz, pleading that he “was a Jew before I was an American and now you are making me the scapegoat.” He added—in a vivid example of the extent of Israeli influence over American diplomacy—“I showed you messages, telegrams and wires from the Soviet Union and Egypt,” only to be criticized publicly in return.
In addition to his bungling Middle East diplomacy, Kissinger infamously green-lighted the undermining of Chilean, Argentinian and other Latin American democracies; bolstered apartheid in southern Africa; signed off on a murderous Indonesian assault on East Timor; and gave a thumbs up to Pakistan’s genocidal attack on Bangladesh. Even the much ballyhooed and long overdue détente with Russia and China, for which Kissinger has claimed enormous credit, stemmed from a misguided hope that the great powers could compel the North Vietnamese to grant the United States “peace with honor” amid the massive, failed Indochina intervention. Nixon and Kissinger prolonged the Vietnam War for four years, achieving nothing but a wider degree of death and destruction in the process.
Upon his death, Kissinger no doubt will be lauded, his mythical overseas accomplishments celebrated for days on end. But beneath the veneer of statesmanship the actual historical record reveals the true Kissinger: a deeply flawed diplomat who nurtured utter contempt for justice, human rights and peace. (Even Indyk admitted Kissinger had “quite a jaundiced view of peace,” but so does Indyk, so that wasn’t a big problem for him.)
So, Henry, when the time comes, may you rest in peace—despite the utter disregard you showed for it throughout your life.
History’s Shadows, a regular column by contributing editor Walter L. Hixson, seeks to place various aspects of Middle East politics and diplomacy in historical perspective. Hixson is the author of Architects of Repression: How Israel and Its Lobby Put Racism, Violence and Injustice at the Center of US Middle East Policy and Israel’s Armor: The Israel Lobby and the First Generation of the Palestine Conflict (available from Middle East Books and More), along with several other books and journal articles. He has been a professor of history for 36 years, achieving the rank of distinguished professor.
Ever since the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant emerged in December 2021, all the signs indicated that it was the mildest and least lethal variant yet. Not a single death has been attributed to it in South Africa,1 for example, where it was initially detected.2
Despite that, U.S. health authorities kept issuing warnings as if Omicron were the worst threat yet. The World Health Organization declared it a “variant of concern,” and countries around the world responded by reinstating lockdowns and other draconian measures.3
The Omicron Death That Wasn’t
Then, December 20, 2021, the death of a Houston, Texas, man was labeled an “Omicron variant-related” death,4 and Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo announced that “The Omicron variant of COVID-19 has arrived in full force,”5 necessitating raising the county’s COVID-19 threat level to “Level-2 Orange.”
As you can see in the video above, within hours, the U.S. press widely reported that the first death from the Omicron variant had occurred amid surging COVID cases. Senior contributor to Forbes, Bruce Y. Lee, and MSNBC senior producer Kyle Griffin reported the death as a “reinfection” of “an unvaccinated man who previously had COVID-19.”6
“Naturally, this case makes you wonder how much protection ‘natural immunity’ will even offer against the Omicron variant,” Lee wrote. “Important note for the unvaccinated who believe in ‘natural immunity,’” Griffin tweeted.7
There was only one problem. The man didn’t die “from” Omicron infection. He died having tested positive for the Omicron variant. Journalist Dan Cohen confirmed this December 21, 2021, in a phone conversation with Martha Marquez, who works with the Harris County Public Health department. Marquez confirmed that the man died WITH COVID, not from it — amazing the difference one simple word makes.
If the man had previously recovered from COVID-19, then one wonders whether it was a false positive. The video above, which includes Cohen’s recorded phone call, illustrates how this singular unverified case was blown out of all proportion and used to refuel waning fears.
Omicron Poses Greatest Threat to the COVID-Jabbed
Authorities also wasted no time to use the fake Omicron death to scare the unvaccinated into getting the jab. Again and again, we were told that the unvaccinated were at greatest risk for this new variant, but this too has turned out to be 180 degrees from the truth.
Research8,9 out of Denmark shows that compared to the Delta variant, Omicron is far more likely to infect people who are “fully vaccinated” and boosted than those who are unvaccinated. The study looked at 11,937 Danish households during the month of December 2021.
In all, 2,225 people were identified as being infected with Omicron. During a seven-day follow-up period, they also identified 6,397 secondary infections. Interestingly, infection with Omicron was more likely to result in a secondary infection than the Delta strain, and the COVID-jabbed were far more likely to get these secondary infections. As reported by the authors:10
“The SAR [secondary attack rate] was 31% and 21% in households with the Omicron and Delta VOC [variant of concern], respectively. We found an increased transmission for unvaccinated individuals, and a reduced transmission for booster-vaccinated individuals, compared to fully vaccinated individuals.
Comparing households infected with the Omicron to Delta VOC, we found a 1.17 (95%-CI: 0.99-1.38) times higher SAR for unvaccinated, 2.61 times (95%-CI: 2.34-2.90) higher for fully vaccinated and 3.66 (95%-CI: 2.65-5.05) times higher for booster-vaccinated individuals, demonstrating strong evidence of immune evasiveness of the Omicron VOC.
Our findings confirm that the rapid spread of the Omicron VOC primarily can be ascribed to the immune evasiveness rather than an inherent increase in the basic transmissibility.”
COVID Shots Are Simply a Miserable Failure
All of this is just more evidence that the COVID shots are an abject failure, and it’s being added to an already long list of studies11 demonstrating their suboptimal efficacy. Below is a sampling of that evidence:
The Lancet Infectious Diseases October 202112 — Fully “vaccinated” individuals who develop breakthrough infections have a peak viral load similar to that of unvaccinated people, and efficiently transmit the infection to unvaccinated and “vaccinated” alike in household settings.
The Lancet Preprint13 — Fully “vaccinated” Vietnamese health care workers who contracted breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 Delta infections had viral loads that were 251 times higher than those found in cases infected with earlier strains. So, the shots do not appear to protect against infection with the Delta strain.
A July 31, 2021, medRxiv preprint by Riemersma et. al.14 found no difference in viral loads between unvaccinated people and those “fully vaccinated” who developed breakthrough infections. They also found the Delta variant was capable of “partial escape from polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies.”
Eurosurveillance rapid communication, July 202115 — An outbreak of the Delta variant in a hospital in Finland suggested the shots did little to prevent the spread of infection, even among the “vaccinated,” and despite routine use of face masks and other protective equipment.<
Eurosurveillance rapid communication, September 202116 — An upsurge of Delta variant infections in Israel, at a time when more than 55% of the population were “fully vaccinated,” also showed the COVID shots were ineffective against this variant. The infection spread even to those who were fully jabbed AND wore surgical masks.
The Lancet Preprint, October 202117 — This Swedish study found the Pfizer injection’s effectiveness progressively waned from 89% on Days 15 to 30, post-injection, to 42% from Day 181 onward. As of day 211, no protection against infection was discernible. Moderna’s shot fared slightly better, waning to 59% as of Day 181. The AstraZeneca injection offered lower protection than Pfizer and Moderna from the start, and waned faster, reaching zero by day 121.
BioRxiv September 202118 — Six months after the second Pfizer shot, antibody responses and T cell immunity against the original virus and known variants was found to have substantially waned, in many cases reaching undetectable levels.
Journal of Infection August 202119 — When the Delta variant was the cause of the infection, neutralizing antibodies had decreased affinity for the spike protein, while antibodies that worsen infection had increased affinity.
The Lancet Infectious Diseases November 202120 — 26% of patients admitted to hospital with confirmed severe or critical COVID-19 were “fully vaccinated;” 46% had a positive COVID test but were asymptomatic, 7% had mild infection and 20% had moderate illness. So, among those who developed symptoms of infection, the majority ended up with severe or critical illness.
medRxiv August 202121 — People with no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who got the Pfizer shot had a 5.96-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold increased risk for symptomatic disease, compared to people who had natural immunity.
Are We Starting to See Signs of ADE?
Over the course of 2020, many published studies highlighted the risk of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) following the COVID shots. For example, one October 28, 2020, paper stressed that:22
“… vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralizing antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).”
While we’ve not seen conclusive evidence of ADE yet, there are signs that point in that direction, including the latest finding that the double and triple jabbed have more than double the rate of secondary infections when infected with Omicron. Clearly, their immune systems are not working as efficiently as in those who are unvaccinated.
Twenty years of research have demonstrated that making a vaccine against coronaviruses is fraught with risk.23 In fact, most previous coronavirus vaccine efforts — for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and similar viruses — have ended up triggering ADE.24,25,26,27,28,29
What that means is that, rather than enhance your immunity against the infection, the vaccine actually enhances the virus’ ability to enter and infect your cells, resulting in more severe disease than had you not been vaccinated.30
The 2014 paper,31 “Antibody-Dependent SARS Coronavirus Infection Is Mediated by Antibodies Against Spike Proteins,” concluded that monoclonal antibodies generated against SARS-CoV spike proteins actually promoted infection, and that overall, “antibodies against SARS-CoV spike proteins may trigger ADE effects,” thereby raising “questions regarding a potential SARS-CoV vaccine.”
It’s Time to Stop the Madness
Masks don’t work. Lockdowns don’t work. Shutting down small businesses and schools don’t work. Social distancing doesn’t work. The COVID shots don’t work. Yet with the emergence of Omicron, governments are reimplementing all of the same countermeasures that haven’t worked for the past two years.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. Yet that’s precisely what’s passing for “science” these days. The answer to this madness is mass-noncompliance. We must peacefully reject these wholly unscientific and harmful “countermeasures.”
It’s also high time to accept the fact that continuing the booster cycle is foolish in the extreme. Clearly, the odds are only getting worse for those with two or more shots, not better, and there’s absolutely no reason to believe they’ll improve their chances with four, five, six or more booster shots. It’s all downhill from here.
Our youths, in particular, must be protected from this folly. Already, data32 from the U.K. show deaths among teenagers increased 47% since they started getting COVID-19 shots. COVID-19-associated deaths also mysteriously rose among 15- to 19-year-olds after the shots were rolled out for this age group which, again, raises the suspicion that ADE may be at play.
The so-called “rules-based international order” aims to facilitate a hegemonic world, which entails displacing international law. While international law is based on equal sovereignty for all states, the rules-based international order upholds hegemony on the principle of sovereign inequality.
The rules-based international order is commonly presented as international law plus international human rights law, which appears benign and progressive. However, this entails introducing contradictory principles and rules. The consequence is a system devoid of uniform rules, in which “might makes right”. International human rights law introduces a set of rules to elevate the rights of the individual, yet human-centric security often contradicts state-centric security as the foundation of international law.
The US as the hegemonic state can then choose between human-centric security and state-centric security, while adversaries must abide strictly by state-centric security due to their alleged lack of liberal democratic credentials. For example, state-centric security as the foundation of international law insists on the territorial integrity of states, while human-centric security allows for secession under the principle of self-determination. The US will thus insist on territorial integrity in allied countries such as Ukraine, Georgia or Spain, while supporting self-determination within adversarial states such as Serbia, China, Russia and Syria. The US can interfere in the domestic affairs of adversaries to promote liberal democratic values, yet the US adversaries do not have the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US. To facilitate a hegemonic international order, there cannot be equal sovereignty for all states. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting [email protected].
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 