No; both sides believe that the god they believe in gave them that land. They also believe it to be highly holy. As long as religion is in the equation, constant conflict in inevitable. It is possible to end the conflict; just highly unlikely. If everybody on both sides were suddenly unbelievers, nobody would be fighting over it so fervently. There`d be dispute, but not pointless war.
The author means by the phrase that People were able to choose who would lead their governments.
Explanation:
In the 20th century there were a lot of new nations that were formed out of old imperialistic colonies and most of them adopted, or ended up adopting a democratic system of governance where the people have the right to choose who would govern over them and the positions are rotating.
This is something that could be called to have given greater ability for the people to govern their own lives and the author has teemed the century thus as the century where the [power went to the people.
Thomas Jefferson was the 3rd president
<span>The US patriot act violates the civil liberties of the American people by giving the government opportunity and rights to treat citizens in many undignified and uncouth ways. It changed the nations ranking from one of the most free countries in the world, to somewhere in the 40th percentile. The bill allows for too broad of a scope of power to federal authorities, violating the rights to privacy among many other civil rights. Because of this I feel the War on Terrorism has greatly overstepped appropriate boundaries of civil liberties, and human rights. I am not sure how they should go about reconciling this issue, but as sure as they should, its likely they won't because government enjoys having more power than the people.</span>
The orange line, starts at new Carolin station and ends at Vienna station
