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.
<span>The "rotteness" of the Roman Catholic Church was at the heart of Martin Luther's attack on it in 1517 when he wrote the "95 Theses" thus sparking off the German Reformation.
In 1500 the Roman Catholic Church was all powerful in western Europe. There was no legal alternative. The Catholic Church jealously guarded its position and anybody who was deemed to have gone against the Catholic Church was labelled a heretic and burnt at the stake. The Catholic Church did not tolerate any deviance from its teachings as any appearance of ‘going soft’ might have been interpreted as a sign of weakness which would be exploited . Its power had been built up over the centuries and relied on ignorance and superstition on the part of the populace. It had been indoctrinated into the people that they could only get to heaven via the church.
This gave a priest enormous power at a local level on behalf of the Catholic Church. The local population viewed the local priest as their ‘passport’ to heaven as they knew no different and had been taught this from birth by the local priest. Such a message was constantly being repeated to ignorant people in church service after church service. Hence keeping your priest happy was seen as a prerequisite to going to heaven.
This relationship between people and church was essentially based on money - hence the huge wealth of the Catholic Church. Rich families could buy high positions for their sons in the Catholic Church and this satisfied their belief that they would go to heaven and attain salvation. However, a peasant had to pay for a child to be christened (this had to be done as a first step to getting to heaven as the people were told that a non-baptised child could not go to heaven); you had to pay to get married and you had to pay to bury someone from your family in holy ground.
Hope this helps a bit :)</span>
Answer:
The right answer here is :
A They lived isolated and separate from others.
Explanation:
Charlemagne´s heir, his eldest son Louis I inherited the entire empire. His idea was to keep its territories unified, but he divided it into three subordinate kingdoms in 817 AD. From 888 AD, France, Italy and Germany (or the kingdoms and territories that would make it) were separate states.
Women in the Progressive Era achieved many important reforms. Perhaps their most concrete victory was the passage of the 19th Amendment, enfranchising women. Yet, reform women also began to redefine the role of the federal government in American society. Reform women worked hard to expand the scope of the federal government in overseeing issues of education, sanitation, health, wages, working conditions, and social welfare.
In the 1920s, the reform movement lost steam, as Americans focused on leisure, entertainment, and conspicuous consumption. However, when the Great Depression hit in the 1930s, Americans again became interested in reform.
Some reform women from the Progressive Era were already in the government, in the Children’s Bureau and the Women’s Bureau in the Department of Labor. Other women who had grown up in the women’s reform movement were brought into the federal government for the first time by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Eleanor Roosevelt herself had been involved in the women’s reform movement. Rose Schneiderman, of the WTUL, Frances Perkins, head of the New York Consumer's League, Mary McLeod Bethune, a civil and women’s rights activist, Sue Shelton White, a suffragist, Mary Williams Dewson, a suffragist, and many other women’s reformers became active in Roosevelt’s government.
These women reformers were instrumental in proposing and implementing Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation, much of which embodied many of the reforms developed and fought for by women reformers in the Progressive Era. For this reason, many historians believe that women reformers formed a bridge between the Progressive Era and The New Deal. Regardless, women reformers in the Progressive Era were certainly successful in improving the lives of countless Americans and in expanding the role of women in the economy, society, and politics.
