Answer:
A) It made the case stronger by showing that Palestinians were willing to live peacefully alongside Israelis.
Explanation:
The Israeli-Palestinian clash is one of the world's longest-running and most controversial conflicts. At its heart, it is a contention between two self-determination movements— the Jewish Zionist task and the Palestinian national project— that make a case for a similar region. In any case, it is thus, a great deal more confounded than that, with apparently every reality and chronicled detail little and extensive contested by the opposite sides and their defenders.
The correct answer is - b. England disagreed with the southern leaders.
The political views of the leaders of the South were much different to those of the leaders of the North. The prime reason for dispute being the slavery, with the North being against slavery, and the South being pro-slavery.
England was much closer in its political views with the North, especially with the issue of the slavery, as England was also propagating for the abolishing of the slavery. Because of this, when it came time for choosing sides, England choose the side with which it had more common things, or rather with the side that was on the same political frequency with it.
The holocaust were Jewish slaved taken by the Germans to be tested on or just plainly tortured, those actions eventually led up to the Geneva convention
Is this for AP government? It seems similar to one I previously wrote. Read up on Supreme Court cases that might help.
