Alarmed by Israel's uncompromising attitude, the President sent on 28 May 1949 a note to Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, expressing that he was not very pleased with the "excessive Israeli claims to further territory within Palestine" and its "rejection of the basic principles of the Resolution set forth by the GA on December 11th, 1948". The US position was that Israel should offer territorial compensation for any territory it had acquired outside the boundaries set forth in the UN resolution of 29 November 1947. The US warned that the Israeli attitude thus far at Lausanne "must inevitably lead to a rupture in those conversations" ... "and that a rupture arising out of the rigid attitude of the Government of Israel would place a heavy responsibility upon that Government and people". The US warned for a revision of its relation with Israel.[14]

When the US ambassador the next day handed over the telegram to Ben-Gurion the latter reacted with saying that US and UN had been unable to enforce the 29 November resolution and to prevent the Arab aggression. He stated that Israel was not established on basis of the resolution but on that of successful war of defence. Because the Arab states refused to make peace, he regarded refugees potential enemies of Israel.

It seems that the US position was that Israel was the aggressor and that Palestinians had rights which were violated in 1947 during the forced exodus and in 1948 when Israel declared independence. How was the US administration unable to enforce its position on a client state?

[deleted]

Gender, what it means, and what makes someone one or the other (or something else in some cases), is a social construct to a degree, and seems to go through various periods of 'revolution'. I think it fair to say that the transgender movement in current society is one demonstration of that, and we can also look at the new masculinity of the 19th century for another example. But what was the conceptualization of gender and sexuality like in the Middle Ages, especially 11th through 13th centuries?

A few additional thoughts:

• How different would the idea be by class... what the commoners would think, the nobility, the church?

• What do we know about the socialization of young persons to the expected gender norms of the period?

• I "rolled" Italy, but knowing that there can often be notable variety throughout Europe in the period, I'm also interested in other regions during that period, and especially how it might differ between, say Italy and France, or England.

• Assuming that there was some degree of fluidity, what did that mean for a biologically male person who was considered to be more "feminine", and likewise for the reverse with a biologically female person? Was there any sort of 'place' for them in society, or were they simply expected to conform to... whatever the answer is?

[High Medieval] - [Italy] - [Gender]

For instance, when he ran for Russian presidency in 1996, he received only 0.5% of the vote, which is ridiculously low. Does it boil down to him being the leader of the Soviet Union when it was dissolved, and, as a result, being perceived by Russians as the man who "lost" the Cold War?

[deleted]

Sure there was Paris and great heathen army (which lost majority of pitched battles) but aside from that I fail to see what's so fierce about killing a monk or unarmed peasant.

I've been watching Vikings and they reference "ale" a lot. I'm curious if anyone knows more about what this is and what they made it with. Thank you!

I am researching information regarding Arthur Nebe for a writing project of mine and became utterly confused with his motives/loyalties. Nebe was the leader of Einsatzgruppen B for many years during the holocaust and the second world war, responsible for the killing of tens of thousands of people, including more famously, the prisoners executed during "The Great Escape".

However at some point during the second world war, Nebe becomes involved with the July 24th Bomb Plot (which ultimately resulted in his own execution).

My question is; how did a anti-semetic leader of an infamous death squad become involved in a plot to kill Hitler? What were his motives? Why did he want Hitler dead?

Some sources have Nebe as a bonafide resistance member, while others have him as a ruthless killer. I understand that both ideals are plausible, but to this extreme? If anyone could lend a hand with this question, or any readings to look for I would greatly appreciate it!

Especially for Bach, although this question could really apply to any period in Western music before mechanical and computer recording and playback tools were widely available.

My question is, since physical scores were so essential to music at the time, to what extent was composition, particularly more complex contrapuntal devices, a a visual process? Did most composers see a score in their heads as they wrote, like a sequencer in their mind's eye? Are there any letters or diaries by composers describing visualizing music in this way as being important?

I wonder to what extent, say, Bach visualized extremely complex fugal structures and "saw" the playback as he wrote. Techniques like permutations seem--looking at a piece of music on paper as "architecture" might tempt someone to rotate it in their head, and it seem like being able to do this would help greatly in hearing these things. How common is retrograde inversion and the like in non-Western musical traditions, or does it even exist? If it doesn't that might suggest some connection between a score-based musical culture and these kinds of techniques. I guess this is a part of the bigger question of the ways a reliance on written music shaped classical music in general. After all, avante-garde "eye music" that is mathematically and visually interesting and horrible to listen to relies heavily on these sorts of transformations.

This seems like it would be the only way to really write efficiently, no matter how talented you are. It seems like the skill of audiation would be as tied to reading musical scores as it would be visualizing them and writing them down. And there are the stories about Beethoven writing stuff down in such a frenzy that he would run out of paper and write all of his walls (not sure where I heard or saw this depiction or how true it is), not "playing back" somethign a bunch of times in his head and copying it out. I imagine revisions were more of a fine-tuning and salting to taste rather than correcting something they misheard, 'cause Mozart wasn't going to get a transcription wrong.

I thought of this question when I heard a film composer talking about dreaming of notation software and sequencer playback in his head and seeing all the, where visualization of music is a side-effect rather than a primary compositional tool.

Thanks!

This was asked ten days ago by Soviet Kangaroo and never got an answer, so I decided to ask again:

I'm aware that there was a belief that "where the Jew is, there is the partisan, where the partisan is, there is the jew." What I'm wondering is whether the policy of execution of the male Jews was merely part of the wider policy of eliminating the Jews from society in general, or if this was, in the eyes of the Wehrmacht commander, going to legitmateley harm the partisans ability to carry out attacks by denying them some form "support" from the Jewish population. Additionally were Jewish people even prominent within the Serbian partisans?

While the USSR obviously was never as rich as the US or the 'West', did the living standards actually DECREASE before they collapsed?

In other words, was the populace undergoing unusually heavy (for the USSR) hardship, or were they simply jealous of the West?

Do they lack ambition, or is it just unnecessary for them? Or have they not succumbed to the intense rampant consumerism that has plagued our modern world?

Mad respect to these guys for looking out for the environment too, and not having political drama bullshit

It just seems unbelievable that everyone just agreed to have a woman rule over them.

Hi, I'd like to ask a question. What was Iran like before the Shah? And pre mossadegh. What were things like socially leading up to these moments. Were the powers to be oppressive towards women, gay people and other minorities? Also, was Islam as strong then as it is today? How is Iran today compared to back then? Any help would be great. Thanks heaps.

I'm just surprised when I read about the decades leading up to the civil war that the anti slavery group would spill blood (bleeding Kansas) to stop the spread of slavery when so many northern whites were still pretty racist towards blacks.