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:
J.P Morgan
Explanation:
He used his wealth to gain control over banking and government fiances in the late 19th century
The two part condition that leads to unemployment is:
- A decrease in consumer and business spending and a decrease in the money supply.
- The correct answer is D.
<h3>
What is Unemployment?</h3>
This can be described as a state where there are qualified people for employment yet there are no employment opportunities for the people.
An increase in money supply raises the price level in the economy. This would lower Unemployment in the long run.
A decrease in consumer spending would mean that income of consumers have dropped.
Then consumers would spend less money to purchase goods and services from businesses. This impacts the businesses in a way that they have to drop off some of their workers.
Read more on unemployment here:
brainly.com/question/305041
I believe that the president sends the laws to the states for approval.
<span>Many Americans opposed the war on moral grounds, opposed by the devastation and violence of the war. Others claimed the conflict was a war against Vietnamese independence, or an intervention in a foreign civil war; others opposed it because they felt it lacked clear objectives and appeared to be unwinnable.</span>
