THE CONSTANTINOPOLITAN STATE Citing Constantinople's mixed population and strategic location on the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits, the commission recommended the complete internationalization of the city and its surroundings. It suggested that “like the District of Columbia in America, it would be a natural place for great educational and religious foundations." Building up Muslim religious institutions, they argued, would help preserve what they called “priceless Oriental values, gratefully to be recognized.”

"THE PROBLEM OF THE GREEKS" One of the report's most striking conclusions, at odds with the widespread sympathy for Greece in the West, was that the predominantly Greek parts of the Aegean coast should be autonomous within Turkey rather than part of an expanded Greek state: "The ability of the Greeks is not in question, nor their enthusiasm for education. On the contrary, both factors make it the more probable that they could continue to hold their own within the Turkish State ... In spite of the violent antagonisms of recent years ... [t]he two races supplement each other."

THE CILICIA REGION The commission recommended this region, “claimed by both Armenians and Syrians,” remain part of Turkey. In reality, European powers awarded it to France, which later abandoned it following fighting with Turkish forces. In an example of just how complex individual identities could be, the report described the inhabitants of this region as “Arabs (who are mainly Turkish-speaking, but are chiefly Nusairiyeh or Alouites),” that is, Alawite Muslims.

ARMENIA Outrage over the Ottoman government’s 1915-1916 genocide of Armenians led almost all Western observers to agree on the necessity of an independent Armenian state. The commission offered a number of caveats, and proposed giving Armenians a smaller territory than what other Western leaders proposed, but nonetheless concluded: “The reasons for a separate Armenia ... may be said to be because of the demonstrated unfitness of the Turks to rule over others, or even over themselves.”

KURDISTAN Citing the ethnic diversity of southeastern Anatolia and implying the Kurdish people were not prepared for full independence, the report gave one of its most ambiguous recommendations for Kurdistan: “A measure of autonomy can be allowed [the Kurds] under close mandatory rule, with the object of preparing them for ultimate independence or for federation with neighboring areas in a larger self-governing union. Full security must be provided for the Syrian, Chaldean and Nestorian Christians who dwell in the area."

DIVIDING THE TURKISH EMPIRE The report balanced unexpectedly sympathetic descriptions of Turkish rule with harsh condemnations. It cited the “agreeable and attractive personal qualities of the Turks,” and praised the Ottoman government’s “negative, indolent tolerance of other people.” Then it concluded that this government was “for the most part a wretched failure ... characterized by incessant corruption, plunder and bribery.”

PORT OF ADALIA AND SOUTHWESTERN ANATOLIA The commission firmly rejected the idea of granting Italy the claims it had made to territory in Anatolia: “There are no Italians native to the country, and no evidence exists that the population desires Italy as a mandatory over them.”

SYRIA In accordance with the wishes of the majority of those interviewed, the committee endorsed the creation of a Syrian state spanning the Levant—roughly, the region between the Mediterranean and Mesopotamia. But they acknowledged that this was ambitious: "No doubt the quick mechanical solution of the problem of difficult relations is to split the people up into little independent fragments,” they wrote, concluding that uniting the territory under a single foreign supervising power “ought to form a constant and increasingly effective help to unity of feeling throughout the state."

THE FRENCH IN THE LEVANT The people the commission interviewed in the Levant repeatedly declared that they sought independence, might consider an American or British mandate, and under no circumstances wanted to be ruled by the French. The report cited as commonly given reasons for this sentiment that “[t]he French are enemies of religion,” “[women] who receive French education tend to become uncontrollable,” and “[t]he French have not treated the natives as equals in Algeria and Tunisia.”

LEBANON The status of Mount Lebanon embodied the essential challenge of the commission's work. Many Christians living in the area demanded independence, while many Arab nationalists demanded the region's incorporation into Syria. The commission sought to resolve this tension by proposing limited autonomy, suggesting that in time this would “make for real unity.” They concluded: “It may be confidently expected” that Lebanon’s “economic and political relations with the rest of Syria would be better if she were a constituent member of the State, rather than entirely independent of it.”

JERUSALEM The report offered a striking political and theological justification for suggesting Syrian rather than Zionist control over the city of Jerusalem: “The Moslems, just because the sacred places of all three religions are sacred to them, have made very naturally much more satisfactory custodians of the holy places than the Jews could be.”

PALESTINE While claiming they had been initially sympathetic to the Zionist idea, King and Crane emphatically rejected its implementation, explaining that British officers they consulted “generally thought that a force of not less than 50,000 soldiers would be required even to initiate the [Zionist] program ... Decisions, requiring armies to carry out, are sometimes necessary, but they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interests of a serious injustice."