|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
154867
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
During World War One, both Arabs and Zionists sought to become “the tools of British imperialism.” The British exploited both as their own interests dictated, without giving a thought for future consequences. In 1915, the MacMahon-Husayn correspondence – conducted between Britain's High Commissioner in Cairo and a non-representative Arab Bedouin leader from the Arabian Peninsula – ended inconclusively, without agreement. In contrast, the Balfour Declaration - the culmination of 6 months of British-initiated negotiations with the Zionists, was published in order to further Britain's military, strategic and propaganda interests. At the time, the British considered it to have been a ‘brilliant coup’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
159011
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Sykes–Picot The Sykes-Picot Agreement is often cited as evidence of a Western conspiracy to carve up the Middle East and subordinate the Arabs. It is a prevalent view across the region, and has been a refrain repeated by critics. Yet very little is known of the far more significant conclusions of a Committee, formed by Maurice de Bunsen on the orders of the British government, which ascertained the options open to the Allies in 1915. Far from a nefarious conspiracy, the Committee came down in favour of a decentralised, ultimately independent region. The First World War compelled some revision of the original intent, but the essence of the Committee's conclusions remained intact throughout the war, and after. Conversely, Sir Mark Sykes repudiated the ‘agreement’ he had made with the French diplomat Picot, and substantial revisions were made to that temporary scheme. Yet it seems that ‘conspiracy sells’, and generations have colluded with the theme of perfidy to reinforce particular narratives, including, most recently, the Da´esh movement's claim to have ‘ended Sykes-Picot’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
155912
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This essay looks at the hearing held by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives in April 1922 on the subject of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, as well as the broader congressional debate over the Balfour Declaration at that crucial time. The landmark hearing, which took place against the backdrop of growing unrest in Palestine and just prior to the League of Nations’ formal approval of Britain’s Mandate over Palestine, offers a glimpse into the cultural and political mindset underpinning U.S. support for the Zionist project at the time as well as the ways in which the political discourse in the United States has, or has not, changed since then. Despite the overwhelming support for the Zionist project in Congress, which unanimously endorsed Balfour in September 1922, the hearing examined all aspects of the issue and included a remarkably diverse array of viewpoints, including both anti-Zionist Jewish and Palestinian Arab voices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|