Papers of the War Cabinet's Eastern Committee [‎156r] (311/544)

assistance of Feisal in regard to our Mesopotamian policy. Feisal
came to the Peace Conference as the son of his father, who is
president of all the Arab revolutionary societies, including those in
Mesopotamia. Colonel Lawrence took the view that just as we have
a nominal Albanian ruler of Egypt, so it was desirable that we
should have an Arab prince as nominal ruler in Mesopotamia. In
his opinion there was no family in Mesopotamia or Syria other than
the Sherifial family who could provide a prince in any way acceptable
both to ourselves and to the local population. 1 le wished to be in a
position to teli Feisal when he met him at Marseilles in the course of
the next few days that the suggestion had been put forward for the
setting up of a nominal Sherifial head of the future Government of
t , Mesopotamia, and that while such a proposal had not been accepted,
it had not been definitely rejected.
Lord Robert Cecil said when it came to the Peace Conference
we should undoubtedly have a very difficult case from the inter-
I I national point of view, particularly with regard to the presentation
of it to the Americans ; this especially so in regard to the Sykes-
Picot Agreement, not only as it affected Syria, but also Mosul and
Baghdad. It would be very important if we could produce an Arab
who would back up our claims, and it was essential that Feisal and
the British Government should have the same story.
The Chairman said that the title was part of a much larger
question, and that it was essential that we should have a thoroughly
thought out scheme and policy in regard to the Middle East. He
thought it very desirable that Mr. Montagu should send a telegram
to Baghdad reminding them of Sir Percy Cox’s suggestions as to the
Najib of Baghdad, calling their attention to the counter-suggestion,
that a member of the Sherifial family should be set up as nominal
ruler, and asking for their views on these alternatives.
Mr. Montagu* explained that he had already telegraphed the
gist of Colonel Lawrence’s proposals to Baghdad. No reply had
yet been received. He w^nild now send a further telegram raising
specificially the question of the Najib of Baghdad.
The Committee agreed to these proposals.
Mr. Montagu stated that before Colonel Lawrence withdrew he
would like to raise a point in connection with the attitude adopted
by the Jews in Baghdad towards the establishment of Arab rule in
Mesopotamia. It was apparent from a telegram received from
Baghdad that the Jews there were hostile to any such proposal. He
would like to know whether a similar feeling existed among the
Zionist Jews in Palestine.
Colonel Lawrence replied that he thought there would be no
difficulty in reconciling Zionists and Arabs in Palestine and Syria,
provided that the administration at Palestine remained in British
hands.
V
Armenia.
5. The Chairman referred to a number of recent telegrams
relating to the position of the Armenians as left by the terms of the
armistice with Turkey, and more especially to a speech delivered in
Parliament by Lord Robert Cecil, in which he had spoken of “ our
occupation of Cilicia ” in their interests. This was news to the
Chairman, and he would like to know whether it was being carried
out.
General I’hwaites replied that General Allenby stated that he
could occupy Cilicia up to the railway, that is to say, Adana inclusive,
but that owing to supply difficulties he could not occupy the whole
of Cilicia.
The Chairman asked what our policy in regard to Armenia was
to be ? Did we propose to assemble all the Armenians in Cilicia, and
what was to be the future fate of the so-called Armenian \ilayets ?