لجنة كينغ - كراين: الفرق بين النسختين

[[File:President Woodrow Wilson (1913).jpg|200px|thumb|left|President [[Woodrowوودرو Wilsonويلسون]] of the United States was an avowed opponent of secret diplomacy.]]

At the Paris Peace Conference, groups of imperial nations such as [[Franceفرنسا]] and [[Unitedالمملكة Kingdom|Britainالمتحدة]] sought to divide the Ottoman Empire among themselves using the [[mandate systemانتداب]] while anti-imperialist leaders such as [[Woodrowوودرو Wilson|President Wilsonويلسون]] and [[Faisalفيصل I of Iraq|Amir Faysalالأول]] sought to oppose such plans.<ref>{{استشهاد بكتاب|عنوان=The King Crane Commission|الأخير=Howard|الأول=Harry|ناشر=Khayats|سنة=1963|مكان=Beirut|صفحات=1}}</ref> The conference began in 1919. In the wake of [[Worldالحرب Warالعالمية Iالأولى]], the participants were exhausted and particularly interested in the fate of their imperial rival, the Ottoman Empire.{{بحاجة لمصدر|date=August 2019}}

The French in particular had extensive claims in the Middle East. Since as early 1900, the French began to build relationships and claims on political, moral and economic grounds.<ref name=":0">{{استشهاد بكتاب|عنوان=Syrian and the French Mandate: The Politics of Arab Nationalism|الأخير=Khoury|الأول=Philip|ناشر=Princeton University Press|سنة=1987|مكان=Princeton|صفحات=30–31}}</ref> They created a role for themselves as the traditional protector of [[Christianityالمسيحية inفي Lebanon|Lebanese Christiansلبنان]]. The French supported the [[Maronitesموارنة]] in Lebanon with missionaries and schools, deepening their relationship with the Christian religious community.{{بحاجة لمصدر|date=August 2019}} Many Lebanese Christians feared domination as a religious minority and vocally supported the [[Frenchالانتداب الفرنسي على سوريا Mandateولبنان]]. This gave the French political credibility in the region.{{بحاجة لمصدر|date=August 2019}}

Finally French capitalists controlled 63% of the Ottoman Public Debt.<ref name=":0" /> This economic tie made France very concerned about the fate of the Ottoman Empire. The French were adamant that because of their unique relationship with [[Syriaسوريا]], they should be one of the nations to receive a mandate in Syria.{{بحاجة لمصدر|date=August 2019}}

The French allied themselves with the British in order to press their claims.{{بحاجة لمصدر|date=August 2019}} While the British did not have the same connection with the Middle East, they were still interested in expanding and defending their existing colonial empire. In what came to be known as the Sykes Picot agreement, the French and the British agreed to divide the Middle East between the two of them after the war.{{بحاجة لمصدر|date=August 2019}} When they reached the Paris Peace Conference, this agreement made negotiation on the Middle East nearly impossible.{{بحاجة لمصدر|date=August 2019}} When American diplomats proposed the King–Crane Commission to investigate popular sentiment in [[Greaterبلاد Syriaالشام]], both French and British Diplomats greeted it with public approval, but behind the scenes the outcome had already been decided.{{بحاجة لمصدر|date=August 2019}}

The British also engaged in secret negotiations with Arab powers in the Hussein-McMahon correspondence before the conference occurred.{{بحاجة لمصدر|date=August 2019}} Ultimately, this would cause the British to fall into poor standing with the Arabs because they would betray Arabian trust by conducting simultaneous negotiations in the [[Sykes-Picotاتفاقية agreementسايكس بيكو]] and the [[Balfourوعد Declarationبلفور]].<ref>{{استشهاد بكتاب|عنوان=Syria|الأخير=Petran|الأول=Tabitha|ناشر=Praeger Publishers|سنة=1972|مكان=New York|صفحات=54–56}}</ref> When the time came for a mandate to be selected, Arabs felt they could no longer trust Great Britain because of their support for Zionism.{{بحاجة لمصدر|date=August 2019}}

[[Zionismصهيونية]] has been a popular and contentious subject among historians for many years. According to the author [[Nadim Rouhana]], “the essence of the encounter therefore took place between a group of people living in their homeland and a group of people who arrived from other parts of the world guided by an ideology that claimed the same homeland as exclusively theirs.”<ref>{{استشهاد بكتاب|عنوان=Zionism’s Ecounter with the Palestinians.|الأخير=Rouhana|الأول=Nadim|عمل=Israeli and Palestinian Narratives of Conflict: History’s Double Helix|ناشر=Indiana University Press|سنة=2006|editor-last=Rotberg|editor-first=Robert|مكان=Indianapolis|صفحات=118}}</ref> Zionism in Rouhana’s eye revolved around a system of exclusion in which Zionist arrived and stole the lands they resided on.{{بحاجة لمصدر|date=August 2019}} This interpretation is understandable given the nature of the future state of [[Israelإسرائيل]], but it doesn’t give a full picture of Jewish people in [[Palestine (region)|Palestineفلسطين]]. Author Dina Porat rounds off Rouhana’s argument by stating, “Almost none of the Zionist leaders educated in Europe studied Arabic…Arabs did not master European languages or the Hebrew spoken by the settlers. The absence of a common language created an abyss that exists today.”<ref>{{استشهاد بكتاب|عنوان=Forging Zionist Identity Prior to 1948|الأخير=Porat|الأول=Dina|ناشر=Indiana University Press|سنة=2006|مكان=Indianapolis|صفحات=53–54}}</ref> The reason for the distance between the two groups rested in the lack of cultural assimilation.{{بحاجة لمصدر|date=August 2019}} These two viewpoints demonstrate that the encounter between Zionists and Arab was one where cultural differences were ignored or exploited.{{بحاجة لمصدر|date=August 2019}} The British in particular exploited the rivalry between these groups with the Balfour declaration. The [[Balfourوعد Declarationبلفور]] aligned the goals of Zionism with their imperial goals.{{بحاجة لمصدر|date=August 2019}}