What is the Sykes-Picot Agreement? how 1916 treaty influences modern Palestinian recognition moves

Understanding the Sykes-Picot Agreement's historical impact

British Foreign Secretary David Lammy recently announced his government would recognize Palestinian statehood if Israel does not agree to a cease-fire with Hamas, stating Britain acted with the "hand of history on our shoulders."

French officials similarly invoked historical precedent when France took comparable steps a week earlier, referencing Charles de Gaulle's calls for Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution based on mutual state recognition.

Also read: Canada to join France, Britain in supporting Palestinian statehood


Neither official mentioned the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the secret 1916 treaty between Britain and France that carved up Levantine territories from the declining Ottoman Empire into European spheres of control.

What was the Sykes-Picot Agreement?

The Sykes-Picot Agreement established British and French control zones across territories that encompass modern-day Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and Palestinian territories. Historians cite the agreement as an example of Western imperial overreach that created arbitrary borders cutting across religious, ethnic, and tribal communities.

Many Arabs view the Sykes-Picot Agreement as a betrayal that created lasting regional instability and conflict in the Middle East.

Historical context behind current recognition moves

Eugene L. Rogan, professor of modern Middle Eastern history at Oxford University, emphasized the agreement's continued relevance.

"The history is so relevant," Rogan said. "It shows there's always a chance for historical actors who screwed up in the past to make up for their mistakes."

Also read: UK to recognise Palestinian state in September unless Israel acts

The current Gaza crisis, including humanitarian concerns over aid restrictions and civilian casualties, has influenced recent decisions by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and President Emmanuel Macron more than historical considerations.

The Balfour Declaration connection

Speaking at the United Nations, Lammy referenced another century-old document: the Balfour Declaration, issued in 1917, one year after the Sykes-Picot Agreement. The declaration endorsed "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" while including provisions protecting "civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

After 21 months of Israeli military operations in Gaza, Lammy argued Britain has a responsibility to act on behalf of Palestinians.

"His argument is that it's time to make good on the second half of that promise," Rogan said, whose books include "The Arabs: A History." "At the time of the Balfour Declaration, Britain had a worldwide empire, which in 1917, they could not imagine losing. David Lammy is operating in a post-colonial, post-E.U. Britain. But he's using history as a legitimating factor."

British strategic motivations beyond the Sykes-Picot framework

Britain's support for a Jewish homeland was primarily strategic rather than moral, according to Rogan. London sought a client community in Palestine to prevent enemy control of territory that could threaten the British-controlled Suez Canal.

Britain later retreated from its pro-Zionist position due to difficulties reconciling Jewish statehood with Arab world relations. The 1939 White Paper proposed creating a Jewish homeland within a majority-Arab Palestinian state, limiting Jewish immigration to 75,000 over five years.

Israeli perspective on recognition timing

Michael B. Oren, Israeli-American historian and former Israeli ambassador to Washington, argued that current recognition moves would prolong rather than end the Gaza conflict.

Also read: Why is Britain recognising a Palestinian state, and which other countries have done the same?

"Israel was not created because of the Balfour Declaration; it was created in spite of the Balfour Declaration," said Oren, author of "Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East."

Oren characterized British and French recognition moves as attempts by post-colonial powers to maintain regional relevance.

"These are former Middle Eastern powers that want to feel like Middle Eastern powers," Oren said. "There's a pathetic quality to it."

France's complex history beyond Sykes-Picot

France ceded Palestinian claims under the Sykes-Picot Agreement but maintained regional influence through other means. From 1945 to 1967, France served as Israel's primary Western supporter, providing Mirage fighter aircraft and nuclear technology that formed the foundation of Israel's undeclared nuclear program.

French support stemmed partly from shared decolonization experiences. Facing Algerian nationalist uprising in 1954, backed by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, France viewed Israel as a counterweight to Nasser's influence.

President Charles de Gaulle reversed French policy in 1967, imposing arms embargos on Israel after military strikes against Egypt and shifting focus toward Arab states.

Gérard Araud, former French ambassador to Israel (2003-2006), recalled lasting diplomatic tensions from this policy shift.

"I felt there was always a sense of 'Don't trust the French,'" Araud said.

Contemporary international recognition dynamics

More than three-quarters of the United Nations' 193 member states will recognize Palestinian statehood following recent commitments from Britain, France, Canada, and Malta to support recognition at September's UN General Assembly.

France faces significant domestic political risks in supporting Palestinian recognition, given its large Jewish and Muslim populations and history of Islamist terrorist attacks, according to Araud.

Also read: Trump says Canada's Palestine statehood stance may hurt trade deal

Colonial legacy and modern limitations

Recognition moves highlight Britain and France's diminished influence in regions they once controlled through agreements like Sykes-Picot.

"Neither country understood that the age of colonialism was over," Araud said. "They behaved as if they were still all powerful. It's not the most glorious page of history for either country."