Jeffrey Sachs appeals desperately on the genocidal planes of Israel

An article published on the portal Common Dreams On Monday, q6, by analysts Jeffrey D. Sachs and Sybil Fares launches a warning about the global risks arising from the military climbing between Israel and Iran. Titled “Stop Netanyahu before he kills us everyone”, the text attributes to the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu direct responsibility for the current conflict and the sabotage of diplomatic negotiations involving the United States and Iran.

According to the authors, the Israeli attack on Iran started on June 12 occurred a few days from the sixth round of negotiations between Tehran and Washington about the possible resumption of the nuclear agreement (JCPOA). Sachs and Fares claim that the offensive has been planned to make any diplomatic advance and warn of the risk of atomic confrontation involving global powers.

The article maintains that military action represents the unfolding of a structured policy for decades. The authors cited Netanyahu’s performance since the 1990s as a promoter of the Middle East militarization, with the objective of consolidating the Israeli presence in Palestinian territories and containing opposing regional governments.

Sachs and Fares contextualize the offensive as a consequence of a geopolitical doctrine that dates back to Likud’s ideology. According to the text, the view expressed in the 1977 party letter states that “between the sea and the Jordan there is only Israeli sovereignty.”

The analysis includes references to political mentors of Netanyahu, such as Ze’ev Jabotinsky, Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin, as well as the “Clean Break” report, prepared in 1996 by consultants in Washington.

This document proposed that the United States adopt a direct military intervention policy to remove regimes considered hostile to Israel, abandoning negotiation attempts.

The authors also cite testimonials from US general Wesley Clark, who would have identified a plan to attack seven countries in five years, including Iraq, Syria, Iran and Lebanon.

The article also points to the use of Netanyahu’s misinformation strategies over the last decades. The authors recall statements made in 2002 to the United States Congress, in which Israeli Prime Minister defended Saddam Hussein’s overthrow and said Iraq was developing nuclear weapons-fake statements.

The authors point out that since 1992, Netanyahu has repeatedly declared that Iran would be a few years old to build an atomic bomb, a prediction that never materialized. “The allegations are pure propaganda; there is always a ‘existential threat’ by hand,” writes Sachs. The text argues that these statements act as a justification for military actions.

The article also mentions the existence of a fatwa issued in 2003 by Iranian leader Ali Khamenei, prohibiting the development of nuclear weapons.

The authors say that Iran has signaled a willingness to negotiate and has committed to international inspections through the International Atomic Energy Agency (AIEA), but that these attempts were blocked by actions of Israel and its allies in the United States.

The Israeli offensive occurred not only on the eve of the resumption of conversations between Tehran and Washington, but also shortly before a UN conference on Palestine. According to the text, the conference could reopen the debate on the creation of two states in the Middle East, which was compromised by the new conflict.

United States President Donald Trump, currently in his second term, confirmed that he had prior knowledge about the Israeli attack, although the US government was involved in negotiations with Iran. Sachs and Fares interpret this position as evidence of diplomatic collapse and direct involvement of the White House with Israeli interests.

The authors also highlight the risks of expansion of conflict to other nuclear powers, including Russia and Pakistan, Iran’s ally. The article mentions the “Judgment Clock”, recently updated to 89 seconds of midnight, and considers this the most critical moment since 1947.

The text concludes with an appeal to the international community to contain the military advances of Israel. Sachs and Fares are responsible for Netanyahu and allies for instabilities that affected thousands of kilometers from North Africa to west Asia, and impair initiatives aimed at creating a Palestinian state.

“More than 180 UN countries support the solution of two states and regional stability. This makes much more sense than Israel to take the world on the edge of nuclear Armageddon,” the authors conclude.

The publication reverberates in the midst of increased tension in the Middle East and occurs as international governments evaluate diplomatic measures to contain the impacts of the conflict. The possibility of a new round of negotiations remains uncertain.