Yoram Hazony of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem offers an explanation for this antagonism in a profound and implication-rich essay, “ Israel Through European Eyes .” He begins with the notion of “paradigm shift” developed by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 study, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . This influential concept holds that scientists see their subject from within a specific framework, a “paradigm.” Paradigms are frameworks that underpin an understanding of reality. Facts that do not fit the paradigm are overlooked or dismissed. Kuhn reviews the history of science and shows how, in a series of scientific revolutions, paradigms shifted, as from Aristotelian to Newtonian to Einsteinian physics. एक ऐसे व्यक्ति के रूप में जो कि पश्चिमी संस्कृति की सभी कमियों के बाद भी इसकी उपलब्धियों को सराहता है उन पश्चिमी लोगों से परेशान सा अनुभाव करता हूँ जो अपनी जीवन पद्धति के प्रति शत्रुता का भाव रखते हैं। यदि लोकतंत्र, मुक्त बाजार, विधि के शासन से अद्वितीय स्थिरता, सम्पन्नता और शालीनता आयी है तो फिर इससे लाभान्वित होने वाले इसे देखने में असमर्थ क्यों हैं?
22.
Israelis themselves are not immune to the new paradigm, as the case of Avraham Burg suggests. A former speaker of Israel's parliament and candidate for prime minister, he switched paradigms and wrote a book on the legacy of the Holocaust that compares Israel to Nazi Germany. He now wants Israelis to give up on Israel as defender of the Jewish people. No one, Burg's sad example suggests, is immune from the new paradigm disease. Hazony's essay does not offer policy responses but in a letter to me he sketched three areas to address: building awareness of the new paradigm's existence, finding anomalies to invalidate it, and revitalizing the old paradigm by bringing it up to date. (2) Note that the new paradigm applies exclusively to Western states. Syria and Iran, to take prominent examples, get a free pass; it's quite fine for them to pursue national interests in as bellicose a fashion as possible, without invoking the Left's wrath. The question of why New Paradigmers, so opposed to Israeli policies and actions, nevertheless look with forebearance on other nation-states and their doings. The related question of whether this double-standard doesn't suggest that the campaigns of vilification conducted against Israel are actually driven by a form of classic anti-Semitism. नाजी आक्रोश को राष्ट्र राज्य के साथ जोडना त्रुटिपूर्ण है? और इस ओर ध्यान जाना आवश्यक है। नाजी राष्ट्र राज्य को नष्ट करना चाहते थे । कान्त से कम उनका स्वप्न वैश्विक राज्य स्थापित करने का नहीं था। नये स्तर वाले इतिहास को नष्ट करते प्रतीत होते हैं।
23.
Israelis themselves are not immune to the new paradigm, as the case of Avraham Burg suggests. A former speaker of Israel's parliament and candidate for prime minister, he switched paradigms and wrote a book on the legacy of the Holocaust that compares Israel to Nazi Germany. He now wants Israelis to give up on Israel as defender of the Jewish people. No one, Burg's sad example suggests, is immune from the new paradigm disease. Hazony's essay does not offer policy responses but in a letter to me he sketched three areas to address: building awareness of the new paradigm's existence, finding anomalies to invalidate it, and revitalizing the old paradigm by bringing it up to date. (2) Note that the new paradigm applies exclusively to Western states. Syria and Iran, to take prominent examples, get a free pass; it's quite fine for them to pursue national interests in as bellicose a fashion as possible, without invoking the Left's wrath. The question of why New Paradigmers, so opposed to Israeli policies and actions, nevertheless look with forebearance on other nation-states and their doings. The related question of whether this double-standard doesn't suggest that the campaigns of vilification conducted against Israel are actually driven by a form of classic anti-Semitism. नाजी आक्रोश को राष्ट्र राज्य के साथ जोडना त्रुटिपूर्ण है? और इस ओर ध्यान जाना आवश्यक है। नाजी राष्ट्र राज्य को नष्ट करना चाहते थे । कान्त से कम उनका स्वप्न वैश्विक राज्य स्थापित करने का नहीं था। नये स्तर वाले इतिहास को नष्ट करते प्रतीत होते हैं।
24.
Israelis themselves are not immune to the new paradigm, as the case of Avraham Burg suggests. A former speaker of Israel's parliament and candidate for prime minister, he switched paradigms and wrote a book on the legacy of the Holocaust that compares Israel to Nazi Germany. He now wants Israelis to give up on Israel as defender of the Jewish people. No one, Burg's sad example suggests, is immune from the new paradigm disease. Hazony's essay does not offer policy responses but in a letter to me he sketched three areas to address: building awareness of the new paradigm's existence, finding anomalies to invalidate it, and revitalizing the old paradigm by bringing it up to date. (2) Note that the new paradigm applies exclusively to Western states. Syria and Iran, to take prominent examples, get a free pass; it's quite fine for them to pursue national interests in as bellicose a fashion as possible, without invoking the Left's wrath. The question of why New Paradigmers, so opposed to Israeli policies and actions, nevertheless look with forebearance on other nation-states and their doings. The related question of whether this double-standard doesn't suggest that the campaigns of vilification conducted against Israel are actually driven by a form of classic anti-Semitism. नाजी आक्रोश को राष्ट्र राज्य के साथ जोडना त्रुटिपूर्ण है? और इस ओर ध्यान जाना आवश्यक है। नाजी राष्ट्र राज्य को नष्ट करना चाहते थे । कान्त से कम उनका स्वप्न वैश्विक राज्य स्थापित करने का नहीं था। नये स्तर वाले इतिहास को नष्ट करते प्रतीत होते हैं।
25.
Israelis themselves are not immune to the new paradigm, as the case of Avraham Burg suggests. A former speaker of Israel's parliament and candidate for prime minister, he switched paradigms and wrote a book on the legacy of the Holocaust that compares Israel to Nazi Germany. He now wants Israelis to give up on Israel as defender of the Jewish people. No one, Burg's sad example suggests, is immune from the new paradigm disease. Hazony's essay does not offer policy responses but in a letter to me he sketched three areas to address: building awareness of the new paradigm's existence, finding anomalies to invalidate it, and revitalizing the old paradigm by bringing it up to date. (2) Note that the new paradigm applies exclusively to Western states. Syria and Iran, to take prominent examples, get a free pass; it's quite fine for them to pursue national interests in as bellicose a fashion as possible, without invoking the Left's wrath. The question of why New Paradigmers, so opposed to Israeli policies and actions, nevertheless look with forebearance on other nation-states and their doings. The related question of whether this double-standard doesn't suggest that the campaigns of vilification conducted against Israel are actually driven by a form of classic anti-Semitism. नाजी आक्रोश को राष्ट्र राज्य के साथ जोडना त्रुटिपूर्ण है? और इस ओर ध्यान जाना आवश्यक है। नाजी राष्ट्र राज्य को नष्ट करना चाहते थे । कान्त से कम उनका स्वप्न वैश्विक राज्य स्थापित करने का नहीं था। नये स्तर वाले इतिहास को नष्ट करते प्रतीत होते हैं।
26.
Conclusion : Leuprecht and Winn find that while the attitudes they uncovered fit none of the three paradigms perfectly, they conclude that the polling data “suggest that Canadian Muslims fit best the paradigm of a divided community with heterogeneous opinions as expressed by Daniel Pipes.” On the one hand, I am gratified by this conclusion. On the other, I wonder how else one might characterize a community made up of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Surely no one expects them to be of one mind, implying that Islam turns believers into automatons who lose their ability to think for themselves but are instead dominated by a leadership that programs them. No human population fits this description. एक ओर तो मैं इस निष्कर्ष से प्रसन्न हूँ तो वहीं दूसरी ओर मुझे इस बात पर आश्चर्य होता है कि आखिर कि कैसे कुछ सौ या हजार व्यक्तियों के आधार पर किसी समुदाय का चरित्र चित्रण किया जा सकता है। निश्चित रूप से कोई भी यह आशा नहीं कर सकता कि वे सभी एक ही मस्तिष्क के होंगे सिवाय इस अंतरधारणा के कि इस्लाम अपने अनुयायियों का ऐसा मशीनीकरण कर देता है जो कि अपनी स्वयं की सोचने की क्षमता खो देते हैं और उस नेतृत्व के द्वारा नियंत्रित होते हैं जो कि जिस प्रकार उन्हें निर्मित करती है। कोई भी मानवीय जनसंख्या इस वर्णन के अनुकूल नहीं आती है।
27.
Under the old nation-state paradigm, the lesson of Auschwitz was “Never again,” meaning that a strong Israel was needed to protect Jews. The new paradigm leads to a very different “Never again,” one which insists that no government should have the means potentially to replicate the Nazi outrages. According to it, Israel isn't the answer to Auschwitz. The European Union is. That the old-style “Never again” inspires Israelis to pursue the Western world's most unabashed policy of self-defense makes their actions particularly appalling to New Paradigmers. Need one point out the error of ascribing Nazi outrages to the nation-state? The Nazis wanted to eliminate nation-states. No less than Kant, they dreamed of a universal state,. New Paradigmers mangle history. पुराने राष्ट्र राज्य अवधारणा के स्तर के अनुरूप आसविज की शिक्षा थी कि “ फिर कभी नहीं” इसका अर्थ था कि यहूदियों की सुरक्षा के लिये एक सशक्त इजरायल की आवश्यकता । नये स्तर के अनुसार इसी “फिर कभी नहीं” की एक दम नयी व्याख्या हो सकती है जो इस बात पर जोर देती है कि फिर इसी भी सरकार के पास ऐसी स्थिति नहीं होनी चाहिये कि वह फिर से नाजी को दुहरा सके। इसके अनुसार इजरायल आसविज का उत्तर नहीं है। यूरोपियन यूनियन है। पुरानी प्रणाली का “ फिर कभी नहीं” इजरायल को इस बात के लिये प्रेरित करता है कि वे पश्चिमी जगत की आत्मरक्षा की क्षमाभाव की नीति के आधार पर नये स्तरवालों को इस भयावहता का आभास करायें।
28.
Under the old nation-state paradigm, the lesson of Auschwitz was “Never again,” meaning that a strong Israel was needed to protect Jews. The new paradigm leads to a very different “Never again,” one which insists that no government should have the means potentially to replicate the Nazi outrages. According to it, Israel isn't the answer to Auschwitz. The European Union is. That the old-style “Never again” inspires Israelis to pursue the Western world's most unabashed policy of self-defense makes their actions particularly appalling to New Paradigmers. Need one point out the error of ascribing Nazi outrages to the nation-state? The Nazis wanted to eliminate nation-states. No less than Kant, they dreamed of a universal state,. New Paradigmers mangle history. पुराने राष्ट्र राज्य अवधारणा के स्तर के अनुरूप आसविज की शिक्षा थी कि “ फिर कभी नहीं” इसका अर्थ था कि यहूदियों की सुरक्षा के लिये एक सशक्त इजरायल की आवश्यकता । नये स्तर के अनुसार इसी “फिर कभी नहीं” की एक दम नयी व्याख्या हो सकती है जो इस बात पर जोर देती है कि फिर इसी भी सरकार के पास ऐसी स्थिति नहीं होनी चाहिये कि वह फिर से नाजी को दुहरा सके। इसके अनुसार इजरायल आसविज का उत्तर नहीं है। यूरोपियन यूनियन है। पुरानी प्रणाली का “ फिर कभी नहीं” इजरायल को इस बात के लिये प्रेरित करता है कि वे पश्चिमी जगत की आत्मरक्षा की क्षमाभाव की नीति के आधार पर नये स्तरवालों को इस भयावहता का आभास करायें।
