Match the following organizations or policies with their respective outcomes. tiles united nations marshall plan warsaw pact truman doctrine pairs provided economic aid to europe outlined the ways to contain communism approved the partition of palestine strengthened soviet control over eastern europe

UNITED NATIONS --- Approved the partition of Palestine

On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations, meeting in New York, approved Resolution 181, which recommended a plan to resolve the conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Palestine region, which was at that time under British administration. The UN plan proposed dividing the western part of the Mandate into two states, one Jewish and one Arab-Palestinian, with one area, which included Jerusalem and Bethlehem, under international control. The refusal of the British government to carry out this plan, together with the refusal of the Arab countries of the region to accept it, resulted in a civil war in the territory of the Mandate of Palestine that erupted the day after the vote of the Plan, followed by the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 and the successive clashes between Arabs and Jews that remain to this day.

MARSHALL PLAN --- Provided economic aid to Europe

The Marshall Plan was an American initiative to help Western Europe, in which Americans gave economic aid worth about 14 billion dollars at the time for the reconstruction of those countries in Europe devastated after the Second World War .

WARSAW PACT --- Strengthened Soviet control over Eastern Europe

The Warsaw Pact was a military cooperation agreement signed on May 14, 1955 by the countries of the Eastern Bloc. Designed under the leadership of the Soviet Union, its express objective was to counter the threat of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

TRUMAN DOCTRINE --- Outlined the ways to contain communism

The Truman Doctrine was a measure created by the United States that sought to fight against the spread of Soviet influence and, above all, communism in Western Europe.

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.