Given America's economic interests in the Middle East, do you agree with the decision to quickly recognize the newly declared state of Israel? Why or why not?​

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

Although there are no options attached we can say the following.

Given America's economic interests in the Middle East, I don't agree with the decision to quickly recognize the newly declared state of Israel.

The issue is so complex and we can trace Palestine-Hebrew conflicts and battles back to the Old Testament times.

It is true that not only the United States, but other countries such as Great Britain have many political and economic interests in the Middle East region, basically, oil.

However, the occupied territories have always belonged to the Arabs, to Palestine. It was England, with the support of the United States, that forced Palestines to accept the Jerusalem territories to establish Israel. And that has created more conflicts, like the recent armed aggression between Palestine and Israel.

The issues that are currently related to the Arab-Israeli conflict are "The settlement of the west bank" and "the Israeli blockade on the Gaza Strip."

Unfortunately, the Middle East is the most conflictive region in the world. One of the main sources for these conflicts is the severe differences and problems between Israel and Palestine. These confrontations are permanent and have generated too much violence.

The main source of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East is the creation of the State of Israel, which displaced the Palestinian majority.

With the support of the United States, Great Britain, and the United Nations, the state of Israel was established on May 14, 1948. The reaction of the Arab nations was immediate with a series of attacks and conflicts to protests the decision. United States President Harry S. Truman was the first one to recognize the state of Israel moments after the declaration.

hi friend   look late me tall   you with my experience first politic because this subject   it is more politic than be religious   and also give you my experience in islam

first   the islam it is not religion order to kill for we be clear .

so bin laden he not was man of religion   for he use they taught sound islamic theology.

osama bin laden he was influenced by mullah mohammad omar, a very radical manosama bin laden's little understanding of religion has made osama bin laden's speech radical and deviated from the teachings of islam

so the answer > they used radical persuasive rhetoric

the answer is a. apartheid.