Establishing a new government.
Netjerikhet Djoser was the 2nd King of Egypt's 3rd Dynasty, and was probably the most famous king during this period. He is also sometimes referred to as Zoser, and by the Greeks, Tesorthos. Through contemporary sources, he is only known by his Horus and Nebt-names, Netjerikhet, "the divine of body". Djoser may have been the king's birth name and appears only in later records. The earliest evidence that the two names belong to the same king is found on a long inscription on a large rock on the island of Sehel at Aswan.
According to the Turin King list, Netjerikhet Djoser ruled for about 19 years, following the 20 year long reign of the otherwise unattested Nebka (Sanakhte). However, some archaeological sources have shown that Djoser may be considered as the first king after Khasekhemwii, the last king of the 2nd Dynasty. The order by which some predecessors of Kheops are mentioned on the Papyrus Westcar may confirm that Nebka must be placed between Djoser and Huni and not before Djoser. The fact that the Turin King list has noted Djoser's name in red may also be significant, indicating a reverence for this king late into Egypt's history.
The options of the question should be, A) independent after the war. B) made into a Jewish homeland. C) made into a large nation called Trans-Jordan. D) closed to Jewish immigration.
The correct answer is A) independent after the war.
<em>During World War I, Great Britain promised that the Arabs provinces of the Middle East would be independent after the war.
</em>
In 1915, the British government needed the Arabs support to defeat the Ottoman Empire in World War I. To make it happen, Great Britain promised independence of its territories. To do so, the British government wrote some letters and sent it to the Arabs. The documents were named “McMahon-Hussein correspondence.” But the British also were secretly negotiating other terms with the governments of France and Russia. So the British lied to the Arabs.
The checks and balances keep every branch of the govt. from victimization their job to induce too powerful. the perspective of Federalists on ratifying the Constitution is that a powerful national government is required to shield voters from threats, which the Constitution ought to be sanctioned like a shot to stop injury. the perspective of Anti-federalists on ratifying the Constitution is that the Constitution doesn't give enough protection for people's rights, which there's Not enough protection for powers of state governments.
