File 87/1926 Pt 2 'Arabia: Bin Saud: Relations with H.M.G. Revision of Treaty.' [‎164r] (15/840)

enorouohin^ beyond the trAdltlonal limits o? the B^ly Land.
rhas the claim of the Meeea Congress that the Ealy
land of the Hejas Includes \itsba and Maan is not boras oat by
history*
The hiotory of the disputed districts sines the
revolt of ihsrif Husssin in 1&16 is very comjlie&tcd* In
1917 &in& Hass#in e&ptured jUcsb* from the Turhs and his troops
remained in effective oeeupation of the plaee until lfl9* It
is true that lord AUenby's General Headquarters held the view,
expressed in a minute by Brigadier-General Clayton that the
^occupation of JKabs by an *rab force is open to various
"objections ••»••••• it might result in the Arabs claiming that
"place hereafter #••«»••• It is essential that «Ocaba should
"remain in British hands after the uar H # But it vrue thought
impolitic to emphasise to the loader of the rah revolt the
temporary nature of his occupation of Afcaba*
After the armistice the conquered territories were
divided by lord Alleuby into various spheres* . fcaba was not
at the time specifically included by lord Allenby in the
provisional area known as "Occupied Kneay Territory (lamb)";
may or may aot h:-v# b««a Intended, to fall within that
area. On the other hand, Lord Alleaby had, la January 1918,
been glren by hie ifojeety'e Oorurnmeat supreme authority aa
far south as ths lint l as J artaJc-Tcbak, 100 miles south of
Ababa, although hia* Uusssia was not told of this, later.
Lord Alieuby's Headquarters dsflnltsly asserted that Ababa
had always fallen wlthia ’’Oeeupied ~aemy Jerrltery (Saetl*
and olaiaed that "no oiril ox military appointments there
"eoald be reoo|piised ualese made by Uamaseos
"( i.e. -vmir £eid) with the Oematender-la-Chlef'a approral’.
Bat/