Hello there and thank you for joining Brainly, first of all. :)
Coming from a perspective of society and civilians, war is always unavoidable. However, there is a fine line between what is known as war and what conflict would be. And conflict, in most terms, is defined as complications. Complications can be resolved without further action, like war. That is, through discussions and government.
Throughout history, we've heard of Crusades, and wars between these two unsettling countries. One, however, is struggling through poverty, and one.. well, lets just say is a powerful force. So, to help explain what the issue is between the two countries - both seemingly claim Jerusalem (or the holy land) as theirs. Multiple minor issues have arose between the times, but most of the conflict seems to be in a strip on Palestine's end called "Gaza". Also known as where the two meet for war. Other areas struggle as well, but to sum this all up, civilians live in places where war is going on. That, right there, is war crime. And war crime on both ends since both did not find a solution to their arguments and disputes. Considering residents of both countries live there, that is also a complete disaster.
So, moving on the question. Because the lack of accurate information has stung everyone, we don't quite know who is the right hand of this argument. Neither do we know under who's ownership the holy land is for sure, and who is sincerely belongs to.
However, we can say that the dispute is avoidable under a circumstance. That is, to either
1) Share the holy land, and unite as a state (which would be quite a difficulty considering both are of different religions)
2) Have one take it over (and that won't happen soon, in my view. Both hold is tightly and yearn for it strongly).
Since both are terribly rare solutions, we can come to the conclusion that the conflict is unavoidable. Both believe it is their right to claim it, and all we can say is: May peace be embedded soon. I really hate seeing headlines that speak of more people dying and no one is doing anything about it. It hurts me greatly.
I hope this helps you. Of course, this question is based off of a personal point of view. If this was explained it your class, and your instructor gave a direct answer to this question, you should probably trust your teacher because I'm no politician. (soon to be, though)
Please forgive me for any grammatical errors or spelling mistakes.
Thank you! :) I enjoyed answering this one.
Answer:
No there should not be. This would cause war and is most likely not allowed in America.
Explanation:
This is because we have laws against this.
The Dred Scott decision was the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on March 6, 1857, that having lived in a free state and territory did not entitle an enslaved person, Dred Scott, to his freedom. In essence, the decision argued that, as someone's property, Scott was not a citizen and could not sue in a federal court.
Answer:
Indirect control
Explanation:
Social Darwinism refers to a social theory that was popular from the 1870s to the early or mid-20th century. This theory argues that the biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest should be applied to human societies. This view states that certain groups of people are weaker, less intelligent or less capable, and that they should not be able to hold significant power, wealth or autonomy. Social Darwinism was influential in the development of ideologies such as authoritarianism, eugenics, racism, imperialism, fascism and Nazism.
This was also primarily present in the indirect method of colonial control. Indirect rule was mainly used by the British and the French in their Asian and African colonies. This was done by maintaining the traditional power structures of these regions, but granting their administration to a small group of European "advisors." This was due to the belief that the European colonists were more intelligent and cultured, and would therefore know what to do in these regions better than the locals themselves.
He attempted to create new Supreme Court positions and put liberals in any vacancies he was able to fill.
FDR attempted to create more Supreme Court positions so he could put more judges on the Court. He claimed it was to increase the efficiency of the Court however, his critics argued he was attempted to "pack the Court" with liberal justices. Over time, justices were needing replacement and FDR was able to nominate liberal justice for the Court who would support his later New Deal legislation. The new justices turned the Court from overthrowing New Deal legislation to now approving the legality of the laws.
