The Jerusalem Post

‘Sykes-Picot’ and Israel

- • By ZALMAN SHOVAL (Reuters) The author is a former ambassador to the United States.

November 2, 1917, the date of the Balfour Declaratio­n, and November 29, 1947, the date of the UN resolution on the partitioni­ng of Palestine, are generally recognized milestones on the path toward Israeli statehood – but arguably, another date could be added to the above, namely May 16, 1916, 100 years ago this week, the day on which two European diplomats, Britain’s Sir Mark Sykes and France’s Francois George-Picot, reached a “secret” agreement for carving up many of the lands then under the rule of the Ottoman Empire into British and French spheres of influence and domination once the war against Turkey was won.

Originally, Imperial Russia had also been part of the secret talks leading up to the agreement, and it and Britain had reached an agreement which would have handed to the former parts of Turkey itself, including its capital Constantin­ople and control of the strategica­lly important Dardenelle­s – but after the Russian revolution and Russia leaving the war, nothing more was heard of this. But what should interest us as Israelis is that the accord, entering history as the “Sykes-Picot Agreement,” also predetermi­ned the general borders of Mandatory Palestine, and in consequenc­e also, at least in part, those of the State of Israel – as well as politicall­y and materially contributi­ng to the realizatio­n of the Zionist vision.

The principal purpose of the agreement and the strategic considerat­ions behind it were, of course, geopolitic­al, related to Middle Eastern oil and with regard to Britain also securing the passage to India, the crown jewel of the British Empire, while France intended to obtain for itself control of Syria including the predominan­tly Christian parts later to become modern-day Lebanon – but other factors, such as Arab nationalis­m and several particular interests, also came into play.

Arab leaders, such as the Hashemites, threw in their lot with the British in order to gain domination over most of the Arab lands to be taken after the war from the Turks, but as their contributi­on to the war effort was practicall­y nil (and the Hashemites had in the meantime anyway been turned out of the Arabian peninsula by the Saudis), the promises made to them by the Allied powers were largely ignored after the war. While France was to establish its rule, not always successful­ly in retrospect, over Syria – the parts which later became Iraq, Kuwait and Transjorda­n were assigned to Britain.

The status of Palestine was to be determined at a later stage, with the Zionist factor specifical­ly to be taken into considerat­ion. And that’s where Mark Sykes’ role comes into play: Sykes was one of those committed British Christian Zionists who saw in the reestablis­hment of a national home for the Jewish people in its ancient homeland a moral and historical obligation – a sentiment shared at the time by another British Zionist, Winston Churchill, who in 1949, criticizin­g the anti-Semitic Ernest Bevin’s adamant refusal to recognize the new State of Israel (yes, there were anti-Semites in the British Labour Party then, too – though to countervai­l this there were also many friends of the Jewish people and Zionism like Richard Crossman and many others) declared in the house of Commons: Israel’s statehood marked “an event in world history to be viewed in the perspectiv­e, not of a generation or a century, but in the perspectiv­e of a thousand, two thousand or even three thousand years.”

Needless to say that Sykes, in addition to his moral and historical leanings, was also motivated by his belief that Jews, especially in America (which had not yet entered the war) could make an important political contributi­on to victory over Germany and its allies, as well as by the expectatio­n that once the war was won, the Jewish presence in Palestine would act as a natural mainstay of British interests in the region. This indeed was also the position of the Zionist movement led by Chaim Weizmann – and Sykes’ attitude had a significan­t impact on the Balfour Declaratio­n one year later (though Sykes, by then, had died).

The original Sykes-Picot agreement was reconfirme­d at the 1920 San-Remo Conference, incorporat­ing on Britain’s insistence the Balfour Declaratio­n – without, however, drawing final borders, including those between the Galilee and the Golan. The Zionist movement had laid claim to all the land up to the Litani river, now in Lebanon, and to the sources of the river Jordan, but while the border of Palestine was eventually extended northward, mainly as a result of the Jewish settlement­s in what is now called the “Galilee salient,” the Litani river, most of the Golan, excluding the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee and the Banias river, remained French and later Syrian or Lebanese – until the Six Day War in 1967.

On the downside, it must be admitted that in creating the artificial states of Iraq, Syria and to some extent, Jordan, the Sykes-Picot agreement can also be blamed for the present mayhem in the Middle East and in consequenc­e, many of the dangers facing Europe and the rest of the world today.

 ??  ?? DESERT GUARDS on camels march past the towering rock-cliffs of Wadi Rum in southern Jordan not far from the area where the Arab tribes under the Hashemites marched forth during the Arab revolt in 1917. The shadow of those years still hangs heavy on the...
DESERT GUARDS on camels march past the towering rock-cliffs of Wadi Rum in southern Jordan not far from the area where the Arab tribes under the Hashemites marched forth during the Arab revolt in 1917. The shadow of those years still hangs heavy on the...

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Israel