After World War II, the Jews wanted a land
a to call their own
b. to share with their neighbors
S
to sell for a profit
the Jews did not want any land
d
Please select the best answer from the choices provided

The correct answer is A. To call their own

Explanation

After the end of the Second World War, the world changed in several aspects, in politics two socio-political blocks were established, which were communism and capitalism represented by the Soviet Union and the United States respectively. Transnational organizations such as the UN were created to avoid the emergence of confrontations of the magnitude of the world wars lived years before. In this scenario, the jew population took center stage because the UN began an effort to give them a territory, the one that they had been searching for centuries. So in a joint action by several countries, it was decided to give them a part of the territory of Palestine, because in their religious beliefs this was the promised land for the Jews. For this reason, in 1948 the UN recognized Israel as a Jewish independent country, handing over its territory in a region of Palestine. So, the correct answer is A. To call their own.

since most of current immigration into the u.s., both legal and illegal, is coming from latin america. it would be very difficult to imagine or rationalize a country my fellow citizens are trying desperately to flee into, would pose a threat to my prosperity or freedom. since the u.s. has a long history of intervention, but no record of permanent occupation, i would not feel oppression is the main objective.  

the largest free trade nation, along with the largest gdp in the world wanting to expand it's economic policy on us, and including us, could only be positive. the u.s. government has no interest in, or way of simply forcing american culture on us. and has no track record of it. other nations that adopted american social culture, or "americanization" did so voluntarily, mainly through the choice of allowing american businesses and u.s. citizens to come into their nations, as free operatives.

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is