Nadrabin dr Herman Ezekiel Kaufmann opisuje ideju o spasenju sveta koja nije samo mistična i hasidska, nego je i jevrejska, proročka, rabino-talmudska i rabino-filozofska. Dr Kaufmann smatra da čežnja za Mesijom obuzima ne samo kabaliste i haside nego i jevrejske puritance. Smatra da se mora praviti razlika između verovanja u Mesiju i mesijanske čežnje. Verovanje u Mesiju je jevrejski princip, dok mesijanska čežnje zavisi uvek od političkog, socijalnog i religioznog položaja jevrejskog naroda u dijaspori. ; Senior rabbi Dr. Herman Ezekiel Kaufmann describes the idea of saving the world, which is not only mystical and Hasidic but also Jewish, prophetic, rabbinic-Talmudic, and rabbinic-philosophical. Dr. Kaufmann believes that the longing for the Messiah takes over not only Kabbalists and Hasids but also Jewish Puritans. He believes that a distinction must be made between believing in the Messiah and messianic longing. Belief in the Messiah is a Jewish principle, while messianic longing always depends on the political, social, and religious position of the Jewish people in the diaspora.
This paper sets out to examine, at the national level, changes in the socioeconomic status of Indigenous Australians during the decade 1991–2001, a period that closely matches 'the reconciliation decade'. The information used is from three five-yearly censuses undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1991, 1996 and 2001. Comparisons are made both of change in absolute wellbeing for the total Indigenous population, and of relative wellbeing between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Five broad categories of socioeconomic status are used in the analysis—employment, education, income, housing and health. The decade is divided into two five-year periods, 1991–1996 and 1996–2001. In 1996, there was a change in Federal government so that for the first time since Indigenous Australians were included in the census in 1971, there is a close match between political and census cycles. This facilitates a comparative assessment of the broad Indigenous affairs policy performance of the Hawke and Keating governments from 1991 to 1996, and that of the Howard governments between 1996 and 2001. This comparative analysis is important because there has been an attempt to change the broad approach in Indigenous policy since 1996. According to recent policy discourse, the period 1991 to 1996 saw a focus on both 'symbolic' (Indigenous rights and 'practical' (socioeconomic improvements) reconciliation, while the period since 1996 has focused increasingly on 'practical' reconciliation only, in an attempt to reduce the material disadvantage of Indigenous Australians. The paper develops a 'scorecard' and shows that, in absolute terms, it is difficult to differentiate the performance of governments pre- and post-1996. However, in relative terms—that is when comparing the relative wellbeing of Indigenous people as a whole with all other Australians—there is some disparity between the two periods, with the early period 1991–1996 clearly outperforming the more recent period. In conclusion we note that while practical reconciliation forms the rhetorical basis for Indigenous policy development since 1996, there is no evidence that the Howard governments have delivered better outcomes for Indigenous Australians than their predecessors. Indigenous socioeconomic problems are deeply entrenched and do not seem to be abating even during a period of rapid economic growth at the national level. It is of particular concern that some of the relative gains made between 1991 and 1996 appear to have been offset by the relatively poor performance of Indigenous outcomes between 1996 and 2001.
This paper sets out to examine, at the national level, changes in the socioeconomic status of Indigenous Australians during the decade 1991–2001, a period that closely matches 'the reconciliation decade'. The information used is from three five-yearly censuses undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1991, 1996 and 2001. Comparisons are made both of change in absolute wellbeing for the total Indigenous population, and of relative wellbeing between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Five broad categories of socioeconomic status are used in the analysis—employment, education, income, housing and health. The decade is divided into two five-year periods, 1991–1996 and 1996–2001. In 1996, there was a change in Federal government so that for the first time since Indigenous Australians were included in the census in 1971, there is a close match between political and census cycles. This facilitates a comparative assessment of the broad Indigenous affairs policy performance of the Hawke and Keating governments from 1991 to 1996, and that of the Howard governments between 1996 and 2001. This comparative analysis is important because there has been an attempt to change the broad approach in Indigenous policy since 1996. According to recent policy discourse, the period 1991 to 1996 saw a focus on both 'symbolic' (Indigenous rights) and 'practical' (socioeconomic improvements) reconciliation, while the period since 1996 has focused increasingly on 'practical' reconciliation only, in an attempt to reduce the material disadvantage of Indigenous Australians. The paper develops a 'scorecard' and shows that, in absolute terms, it is difficult to differentiate the performance of governments pre- and post-1996. However, in relative terms—that is when comparing the relative wellbeing of Indigenous people as a whole with all other Australians—there is some disparity between the two periods, with the early period 1991–1996 clearly outperforming the more recent period. In conclusion we note that while practical reconciliation forms the rhetorical basis for Indigenous policy development since 1996, there is no evidence that the Howard governments have delivered better outcomes for Indigenous Australians than their predecessors. Indigenous socioeconomic problems are deeply entrenched and do not seem to be abating even during a period of rapid economic growth at the national level. It is of particular concern that some of the relative gains made between 1991 and 1996 appear to have been offset by the relatively poor performance of Indigenous outcomes between 1996 and 2001.
In Syria's Reconciliation Agreements, Raymond Hinnebusch and Omar Imady explore how the regime and the opposition interacted with the evolving idea of musalahat or 'reconciliations'. At first, when neither side could unseat the other, these reconciliations were in essence, truces which reflected the war of attrition. As the regime grew stronger, largely after the Russian intervention, the musalahat evolved into several more advanced types, all designed to break the rebels, yet significantly different in the extent to which the regime was willing to agree to a more balanced arrangement. Hinnebusch and Imady proceed to examine the more recent, and internationally sanctioned, 'deconfliction zones' and show how they are similar, and different, from previous arrangements. The critical trademark of all of this, from a governance perspective, is the fact that all these arrangements entail, in various degrees, the decentralisation of government authority. The paper ends with the ironic conclusion that the Syria that may emerge from all this extensive decentralisation may resemble in certain ways the very Syria the protesters back in 2011 were advocating.
On Monday, March 6, 2017, students from Glebe Collegiate organized a demonstration on the steps of Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario. The students called on the Prime Minister and other elected officials to treat Indigenous peoples with dignity and respect and to immediately cease discriminatory practices. The students named this event Youth and Reconciliation. Erin Samant and Daxton Rhead helped organize and lead Youth and Reconciliation. What follows is a transcript of their statements to fellow students, allies, Members of Parliament, and Indigenous organizations that were present during the event.
In Syria's Reconciliation Agreements, Raymond Hinnebusch and Omar Imady explore how the regime and the opposition interacted with the evolving idea of musalahat or 'reconciliations'. At first, when neither side could unseat the other, these reconciliations were in essence, truces which reflected the war of attrition. As the regime grew stronger, largely after the Russian intervention, the musalahat evolved into several more advanced types, all designed to break the rebels, yet significantly different in the extent to which the regime was willing to agree to a more balanced arrangement. Hinnebusch and Imady proceed to examine the more recent, and internationally sanctioned, 'deconfliction zones' and show how they are similar, and different, from previous arrangements. The critical trademark of all of this, from a governance perspective, is the fact that all these arrangements entail, in various degrees, the decentralisation of government authority. The paper ends with the ironic conclusion that the Syria that may emerge from all this extensive decentralisation may resemble in certain ways the very Syria the protesters back in 2011 were advocating. ; Publisher PDF
In Syria's Reconciliation Agreements, Raymond Hinnebusch and Omar Imady explore how the regime and the opposition interacted with the evolving idea of musalahat or 'reconciliations'. At first, when neither side could unseat the other, these reconciliations were in essence, truces which reflected the war of attrition. As the regime grew stronger, largely after the Russian intervention, the musalahat evolved into several more advanced types, all designed to break the rebels, yet significantly different in the extent to which the regime was willing to agree to a more balanced arrangement. Hinnebusch and Imady proceed to examine the more recent, and internationally sanctioned, 'deconfliction zones' and show how they are similar, and different, from previous arrangements. The critical trademark of all of this, from a governance perspective, is the fact that all these arrangements entail, in various degrees, the decentralisation of government authority. The paper ends with the ironic conclusion that the Syria that may emerge from all this extensive decentralisation may resemble in certain ways the very Syria the protesters back in 2011 were advocating. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed
South African state schools have begun to admit pupils from different linguistic, cultural, religious and political backgrounds. This could raise problems for Religious Education which traditionally has been instruction in the Christian faith rather than education in religion. If the subject is to gain credibility a new approached must be adopted, one which has the aim of concealing people from different backgrounds. Suggestions are made as to how this could be done, viz, a study of the world's major religions as a way of inculcating attitudes of tolerance and respect, an emphasis on the importance of inter-personal relations, as well as God's demands for justice and righteousness. If this line of approach is followed not only will the person-building potential of Religious Education be realised, but the subject could make a contribution to the policy of reconciliation.
This report discusses the budget reconciliation process that is used by congress during the past quarter-century to implement major changes in budget policy.
Commemorations are in general highly political acts; in East Asia, the period around the anniversary of Japan's surrender on August 15 has, for some time now, become highly politicized. It is a moment in which postwar Japan performs its attitude toward its war responsibility and aggressive acts-performances that are invariably evaluated for their sincerity, or lack thereof. At the same time, nation states who suffered Japan's wartime aggressions use the period to present their understanding of the history of Japan's wartime conduct and, as is often the case, to include a criticism of the perceived inadequacies of Japan's contrition. The end of the war and its commemoration in East Asia are thus, in this sense, a proxy stage on which some nation states fight the history war. Political actors were not unaware of how the commemorations in 2015 had the potential to function as a way to criticize Japan, as suggested by Taiwanese president Ma Ying-Jeou's comments in an interview with Japanese journalists about his confidence that Taiwan's commemoration of the war's end would not hurt the relationship between Taiwan and Japan. Commemorations of the war in East Asia do not necessarily have to take on these meanings, but in 2015 they took on significations that exceeded their meanings for individual countries and became collectively a circuit of "commemoration as critique." Singapore however, has little use for this kind of commemoration for it sees itself as having long since achieved a reconciliation with Japan on the question of Japan's war responsibility in WWII and its conduct in Singapore, and this paper traces the history of this condition.
This book is edited by Yoichi Funabashi, a leading Japanese journalist and acclaimed author on Japanese foreign relations in the Asia-Pacific region. It is a collection of case studies of "reconciliation" in the region. These cases, both interstate and intra-state, are analysed in most cases by scholars or scholar/activist(s) specialising in the field.
This book is edited by Yoichi Funabashi, a leading Japanese journalist and acclaimed author on Japanese foreign relations in the Asia– Pacific region. It is a collection of case studies of 'reconciliation' in the region. These cases, both inter-state and intra-state, are analysed in most cases by scholars or scholar/activist(s) specialising in the field.
