The two faces of the Israeli nuclear policy

Resumen: En Israel hay una pugna entre quienes sostienen una política de confrontación o de balance nuclear y los que sostienen una política de reconciliación e integración regional. Los primeros bregan por acuerdos que se basen en principios de disuasión. Los últimos buscan soluciones que permitan acuerdos de paz que impidan a largo plazo basar la seguridad en disuasión nuclear a fin de crear un Medio Oriente libre de armas no-convencionales. Para ambas políticas Irán es un país clave. Esta confrontación no es paralela a las clásicas distinciones entre formaciones partidarias que se identifican por ideologías de izquierda o de derecha. Hay coincidencias operativas entre partidarios de ideologías incluso opuestas, y controversias entre partidarios de una misma ideología. Pese a atenerme exclusivamente a la política israelí, es casi obvio que cada facción en esta contienda tiene sus “aliados” operativos dentro de Irán. Me limitaré para este análisis a la pugna alrededor de la idea de disuasión y al análisis de los principios argumentativos por los que se distingue las diversas facciones, formulando mi propia estrategia interpretativa. El objetivo es una mejor comprensión de las corrientes subterráneas que determinan la política israelí.In Israel, there is a struggle between those who support a policy of confrontation or nuclear balance and those who support a policy of reconciliation and regional integration. The former are struggling for agreements based on the traditional principles of deterrence while the latter seek peace agreements intended to create a Middle East free of unconventional weapons. For both policies, Iran’s nuclear program is a key issue. this confrontation transgresses the classical distinctions between political parties and ideologies of the right and the left. Theere are operative accords between supporters of opposite ideologies and disputes between supporters of the same ideology. though I will refer exclusively to Israeli policy, it is almost obvious that in this context each faction has its operative “allies” across the national borders, actually even inside Iran. I will confine myself to the analysis of the struggle around the idea of deterrence and the analysis of the argumentative principles leading the two factions, formulating my own interpretive strategy.The goal of this essay is to provide a better understanding of the undercurrents that determine Israeli politics

Las dos caras de la política nuclear israelí

In Israel, there is a struggle between those who support a policy of confrontation or nuclear balance and those who support a policy of reconciliation and regional integration. The former are struggling for agreements based on the traditional principles of deterrence while the latter seek peace agreements intended to create a Middle East free of unconventional weapons. For both policies, Iran’s nuclear program is a key issue. this confrontation transgresses the classical distinctions between political parties and ideologies of the right and the left. Theere are operative accords between supporters of opposite ideologies and disputes between supporters of the same ideology. though I will refer exclusively to Israeli policy, it is almost obvious that in this context each faction has its operative “allies” across the national borders, actually even inside Iran. I will confine myself to the analysis of the struggle around the idea of deterrence and the analysis of the argumentative principles leading the two factions, formulating my own interpretive strategy.The goal of this essay is to provide a better understanding of the undercurrents that determine Israeli politics.Resumen: En Israel hay una pugna entre quienes sostienen una política de confrontación o de balance nuclear y los que sostienen una política de reconciliación e integración regional. Los primeros bregan por acuerdos que se basen en principios de disuasión. Los últimos buscan soluciones que permitan acuerdos de paz que impidan a largo plazo basar la seguridad en disuasión nuclear a fin de crear un Medio Oriente libre de armas no-convencionales. Para ambas políticas Irán es un país clave. Esta confrontación no es paralela a las clásicas distinciones entre formaciones partidarias que se identifican por ideologías de izquierda o de derecha. Hay coincidencias operativas entre partidarios de ideologías incluso opuestas, y controversias entre partidarios de una misma ideología. Pese a atenerme exclusivamente a la política israelí, es casi obvio que cada facción en esta contienda tiene sus “aliados” operativos dentro de Irán. Me limitaré para este análisis a la pugna alrededor de la idea de disuasión y al análisis de los principios argumentativos por los que se distingue las diversas facciones, formulando mi propia estrategia interpretativa. El objetivo es una mejor comprensión de las corrientes subterráneas que determinan la política israelí

The Ontological Argument Reconsidered

The ontological argument- proposed by St. Anselm and developed by Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, and Marx- furnishes a key to understanding the relationship between thought and reality. In this article, we shall focus on Hegel’s attitude towards the ontological argument as set out in his Science of Logic, where it appears as a paradigm of the relationship between thought and reality. It should be remarked, moreover, that our choice of the subject was not random and that it was selected for the reason that belief in God is a preeminent social reality, inasmuch as faith in God creates His existence. Therefore, an investigation of the concept of God is an inquiry into the most profound recesses of human consciousness. The great opponents of the ontological argument, from Hume down to our day--and even Kant--have based their arguments upon the fundamental empiricist assertion that existential judgments are not analytical. This paper attempts to defend the ontological argument against its opponents

Peak oil in the light of oil formation theories

The peak oil debate is underpinned by a biological paradigm of oil formation that generates a notion of fixed oil and gas reserves in the Earth's crust. However, the potential of the abiogenic theory of oil formation is underestimated. We will demonstrate the value of modern petroleum science based on a thermodynamic understanding of hydrocarbon formation, and both experimental and observational data, which can introduce a change into the debate. Now emotionally charged and contentious, the debate will supposedly develop a balanced and realistic scenario on gradual oil transition and a secure global energy supply.

The paradox of oil reserve forecasts: The political implications of predicting oil reserves and oil consumption

In the light of the outstanding importance of hydrocarbons for global energy, the controversy over peak oil has become both pressing and emotionally charged. Two conflicting parties - alarmists and optimists - hold irreconcilable positions. The shaping of the future energy policy is presently based on modeling results and geological considerations only. We show that the existing predictions of the energy crisis are increasingly mixed-up with value-judgments. The value analysis of those forecasts allows us to suggest that at least part of the estimations are implicit reflections of predictors' ends and values, and do not demonstrate a real ability to anticipate future conditions. Paradoxically, the question of oil reserves depletion is better understood when predictions are viewed as an instrument to impose the predictors' values and intervene in the currently bustling oil market. The intervention in the oil prices may occur in either direction becoming a tool to justify values rather than an instrument for the acquisition of knowledge.Energy crisis Values Political implications