Talk:Sykes–Picot Agreement/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

The agreements between the Arabs and the West were not made between the Arabs and T. E. Lawrence. The agreements are documented in the McMahon-Hussein correspondences. Sir Henry McMahon was the Secretary of State in His Majesty King George V's goverment. Sharif Hussein bin Ali was the Emir of Mecca and the proclaimed King of Arabia. It was an agreement between two nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address

Cleanup Needed

Lots of capitalization errors, and the text of the document needs to be Wikified. I'll try when I get a minute. Iamvered 16:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A question about Palestine

"The area which subsequently came to be called Palestine was for international administration pending consultations with Russia and other powers." - Why? Because all allies wanted it or because noone wanted it? Where can I find info on it?

Britain, France, Germany, & Russia all wanted control of Palestine for its strategic geopolitical situation, its oil, and its agricultural history. The Young Turks wanted it under the control of an independent Turkey, and a number of ambitious individuals like Djemal Pasha wanted it for their personal enrichment. Palestine has been in a political tug-of-war for thousands of years. --Michael K. Smith 00:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ritchie Ovendale gives a good analysis in Chapter 2 of "The Origins of the Arab Israeli Wars" (ISBN 0-582-82320-X). Will see if it could add anything to add to the article, but might take a while as it'll be my first contribution! Dicconb 21:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmm.....

Quoted from the article '"The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western/Arab relations, creating the animosity that we see today, as the Kurds under Russia, the Shiites under France, and the Sunnis under Britain, broke out into mass regional war, provoking the Treaty of Versailles, which led to WWII," according to Dr. Jane Wykowsky of Harvard University.'

Provoking? Whether the Treaty of Versailles caused WW2 or not (a very debatable claim itself unless you happen to be a revanchist Nazi) it certainly didn't lead to the regional instability there in the Near and Middle East and this instability was not a primary cause of WW2.

The Ottoman dissolution was covered by the Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne. NOT the Treaty of Versailles. Nice to see Harvard keeping up its customary high standards.Jatrius (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Very true. Not only is the content of the quote utter nonsense; a quick google-search also gives the impression that "Dr. Jane Wykowsky of Harvard University" is a fictional person who apparently never has contributed anything to the field except this ridiculous claim of a "mass regional war".
I have therefore deleted the entry.
--SimmiBoi (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I have never heard of Dr. Jane Wykowsky. Nonetheless, political pundits, historians, and economists alike have always cited the unrealistic reparations imposed upon Germany under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles - together with the French occupation of the Ruhr River valley in an effort to collect - as underlying causes of WWII. The Economic Consequences of the Peace by economist John Maynard Keynes was one of the first bestsellers to denounce the treaty. A few other representative examples are: The Causes of the Second World War, Andrew J. Crozier,Published by Blackwell Publishing, 1997 ISBN 0631186018, page 53, or War Stories III, Oliver North, by Regnery Publishing, 2005, ISBN 089526014X, page 1
The breakup of the Ottoman Empire actually did begin with the Treaty of Versailles. Articles 1-30 of the Treaty of Versailles contained the Covenant of the League of Nations. Article 22 established the System of Mandates, and subsection four of that article specifically stipulated that certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire had reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations could be provisionally recognized, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. harlan (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The Other Powers and so-called conflicts

The article states that 'The region of Palestine was slated for international administration pending consultations with Russia and other powers.' The text of the Sykes-Picot Agreement actually said

'That in the brown area there shall be established an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other Allies, and the representatives of the Shereef [aka Sharif] of Mecca

In other words Hussein was supposed to have his say in deciding the proposed administration. The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement recognized an 'Arab State' and called for borders to be established after the Peace Conference. The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement also called for British mediation of any disputes.

The text of the Sykes-Picot Agreement actually said:

'That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab State or a Confederation of Arab States... ...under the suzerainty of an Arab chief.'

In other words, Sykes-Picot didn't preclude Hussein from ruling over the proposed Arab State, or a Hashemite Arab confederation.

At the Paris Peace Conference, Hussein, speaking through Prince Faisal, did not ask for independence. He asked for a British Mandate. see:DESIRES OF HEDJAZ STIR PARIS CRITICS The Zionist Organization presented a map Faisal-Weizmann map which left the area east of the Hedjaz Railway (most of Transjordan) to the Arab State. They also asked for a British Mandate.

The King-Crane Commission of Inquiry on the Mandates contained a confidential annex which noted that the French:

'resent the payment by the English to the Emir Feisal [aka Faisal] of a large monthly subsidy, which they claim covers a multitude of bribes, and enables the British to stand off and show clean hands while Arab agents do dirty work in their interest. They feel that in arming the Arabs the British are again working against the French. They claim further that the British are more or less directly responsible for the undeniably strong anti-French feeling shown by practically all the Moslem and non-Catholic Christian elements of Syria. They feel that Britain has been unable to resist the desire to connect Egypt with Mesopotamia under one control as a bulwark of India, and as a new field for profitable commercial exploitation.'Confidential Appendix of the Commission Report

The Jewish claims on Jerusalem also 'just happened' to conflict with the French aims of re-establishing their four century-old Protectorate of Jerusalem.The End of the French Religious Protectorate in Jerusalem (1918-1924) In short, the French probably felt that the Zionists and Hussein were a 'cats paw' for a British Mideast Mandate. They didn't necessarily object to an Arab ruler in Damascus, but they did resent an Arab ruler who they felt was employed by their rival, Great Britain.

In a meeting at Deauville in 1919, David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau had revised the Sykes-Picot plan, with Palestine and the Vilayet of Mosul falling into the British sphere in exchange for British support of French influence in Syria and Lebanon, and a share of the proceeds from the British oil interests in the vilayet of Mosel. Pappe, Ilan. The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947–1951, pages 3-5.

The Eastern Committee of the British Cabinet, previously known as the Middle Eastern Committee, had met on 5 December 1918 to discuss the government's commitments regarding Palestine. Lord Curzon chaired the meeting. General Jan Smuts, Lord Balfour, Lord Robert Cecil, General Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and representatives of the Foreign Office, the India Office, the Admiralty, the Wax Office, and the Treasury were present. T. E. Lawrence also attended. According to the minutes Lord Curzon explained:

"The Palestine position is this. If we deal with our commitments, there is first the general pledge to Hussein in October 1915, under which Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future [McMahon-Hussein] . . . Great Britain and France - Italy subsequently agreeing - committed themselves to an international administration of Palestine in consultation with Russia, who was an ally at that time [Sykes-Picot]. . . A new feature was brought into the case in November 1917, when Mr Balfour, with the authority of the War Cabinet, issued his famous declaration to the Zionists that Palestine 'should be the national home of the Jewish people, but that nothing should be done - and this, of course, was a most important proviso - to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine [The Balfour Declaration]. Those, as far as I know, are the only actual engagements into which we entered with regard to Palestine." Palestine Papers 1917-1922, Doreen Ingrams, page 48 and UK Archives PRO. CAB 27/24

When the Hashemites lost their bid for Damascus, they complained that Sykes-Picot had violated the McMahon pledges, but it really had not. The Zionist claimed that the Faisal-Weizmann agreement had promised them a national home in all of Palestine - including Transjordan, but it really had not. The 1922 Churchill White Paper claimed that Palestine had always been excluded from the area which had been promised to Hussein, but it really had not. Although the French had endorsed the Balfour Declaration, they opposed any Zionist activity in southern Lebanon. The French High Commissioner in Lebanon, Henri de Jouvenel, felt that if Zionists established settlements around Sidon and Tyre they would surely begin agitating for the inclusion of that region in the Jewish national home.Early Zionist Interest In Lebanon, by Laura Zittrain Eisenberg

None of the parties wanted to admit that they had all double crossed each other. harlan (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"The new state included portions of Syria, Palestine, and northern Mesopotamia"

What part of Palestine was a part of mandate of Syria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.134.27 (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Palestine" was a synonym for southern Syria. The new state was declared in March of 1920. None of Syria or Palestine was (as yet) part of any mandate.
A month later, in April 1920, the decision was made at the San Remo conference to have France administer the proposed Mandate for Syria. That conference actually recognized the independence of Syria (on a provisional basis). In any event, the terms of the Syrian and Palestine mandates were not approved by the League of Nations until 29 September 1923. The British and French governments issued a continuous stream of declarations and written legal assurances acknowledging 'the right of the Syrians to unite to govern themselves as an independent nation' The Pan-Syrian Congress apparently felt exactly the same way about their right of self-determination. harlan (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"wax office"

Can't figure out what the wax office is/was. Perhaps either an explanation or a new article? Bckirkup (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Now corrected to "War Office"! Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC).

Discovery of oil in Arabia - 1922

1922 was such a pivotal point in time. Balfour, San Remo, Mandate.....OIL! That discovery coming shortly after all the documents were signed caused an immediate reversal in policy towards the Jews. Instead of creating the Jewish state in 1923 and avoiding the hollocaust Arab/Moslem appeasement set in and Israel had to wait until 1948 and the deaths of 1/3 of all the Jews. Britain role in this breach of International Law and morality was confirmed in the 1939 White Paper. Britain still exhibits anti-semitic rhetoric in its dealings with Israel.

Syria and agreement n° 7

This change to the Syria article states that "in 1917, Palestine [came to Britain] 'to secure daily transportation of troops from Haifa to Baghdad' - agreement n° 7". Apart from being unsourced, this addition has other problems, such as that it is not clear what is meant by Palestine. Since it further is not primarily about Syria anyway, I'll remove it from that article. If there were anything to it, the place for it would be this article, so I will mention it here in case anyone has a source for it and can put it into context. The subsequent paragraph contains an unsourced explanation of the change of the border around Mosul, which might be worth including here, if a source can be found. — Sebastian 21:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Turks were delighted

Why were they delighted? 70.187.167.234 (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

presumably because it showed the british and french in a bad light rather than for the actual substance. 92.13.91.13 (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits on Kurdistan

The recent edits on the impact on the Kurdish regions, whilst garbled and unsourced, highlight an important area missing in the article. When I find some time I will try to add sourced references to this topic. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


Hedjaz = Hejaz

I will make the changes with internal links. nobs (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

conspiracy

as much as I hate that word the facts are what they are. the Sykes–Picot Agreement was a massive conspiracy by the west (United States had NO role in it) against the Arabs and the Kurds. The civil wars in Lebanon and Syria were the result of this conspiracy. it has also made the war in Iraq much longer than it otherwise would have been (if it happened at all). the people of the region need to be given the chance to redraw their borders on their own. this is the only way there will be peace in the Middle East. If anyone has credible information why this hasn't happened please post links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.243.173 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree personally with what you are saying, but this is merely my opinion. An encyclopedia is not a place for personal opinion. It should present the facts and allow people to draw their own conclusions. As it stands, this article does help people to understand how the present sorry situation came about. LynwoodF (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

additional useful internal link

there is no link to the page on the Alawite State. please add this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawite_State — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.243.173 (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Alawite State is all part of the story, so I have added it under "See also". LynwoodF (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Satrapy

There is no mention of the organisational design of the particular states that were delineated by SPA. The empowerment of minorities within these states appears to have been by design and with the intention of making each state dependent for violence on its colonial sponsor. It may be reasonable to say that the SPA was unstable by design and depended for stability on its colonial overlords. Examples include:

Iraq - Sunni minority over Shi'ite Syria - Alawite over Sunni Lebanon - Christian over Shi'ite Palestine - Jew over Sunni

This looks like Satrapy to me, at the time a well-understood colonial technique of control.

Given that the current state of the Levant reflects the disintegration of SPA since the Iraq war should the main article not contain a section on this important, even vital, sub-topic? Or at least a link to a new article on the origins of the disintigration of the SPA? They designed it so that it would explode without a boot on the satraps' necks and now it's happening.

JERONTIUS (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

ISIS dismantles border

Hi everyone, first time user here, hope I do this right. As we know, for over a year now, ISIS has physically removed the Sykes-Picot line between Iraq and Syria. I think that this deserves mention on the page, do you agree?50.73.125.157 (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what "physically removed the Sykes-Picot line" means. Zerotalk 20:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I think I know what you are getting at, but the situation is very fluid and, despite the fact that ISIL currently controls territory on both sides of the border and chooses not to recognize it, there are plenty of people who are determined to maintain the line. So we may find that the border has not been permanently removed. The whole business of ISIL activity is dealt with in a detailed article called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which is the name WP seems to have settled on for the organization. To my mind, this article on Sykes-Picot should not be altered until we have some clearer historical perspective. LynwoodF (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
They've been bulldozing it I think? I do not have an opinion yet on whether it shoud be in the article, came here to read up on the subject. Elinruby (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hot mess

This article is a hot mess... at least the lead is written poorly. I started fiddling with it but there's a quite a lot of content in there and no structure. It is a bit of a tall task for the time I have in store and I'm sure others would like to chime in with their own style of choice. How can I get someone withe good writing skills to work with me on restructuring this article?

Sample changes:

  • Adding the reason to the publication.
  • Pushing long lasting impressions to the bottom of the lead.
  • Negotiations notes in their own section rather than just in the lead.

The Map

The second map image in the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement#/media/File:Sykes-Picot.svg) is missing a legend, and strikes me as unclear; the caption mentions red and blue, but there are 2 shades of each and the purple is unexplained. There is a legend in the image's metadata https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sykes-Picot.svg explaining these different shades of red and blue. However, reading that I also discovered another issue; it claims its source is http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/sykesmap1.html, but that is just a low-res copy of the original here http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml, which is not licensed appropriately for Wikipedia. To be fair, I don't think there's a copyright problem as the SVG version is not a slavish tracing of the original - which attempts to reconstruct the map boundaries from historical evidence and geography - but is rather an approximation. This in itself is worth mentioning in the image caption, ie "Approximate zones of...influence" rather than just "Zones of influence". I'm just reading this in passing though, leaving this for other editors Bazzargh (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

driveby copyedit

Reading the article for my own information, cleaning up some idiomatic strangenesses, nothing big, just editors who likely aren't native english speakers. As many experts on this in fact might not be. A couple of editorial comments though:

  • people who are as unfamiliar with this history as I am may also wonder why 2014 is given as the year the "architecture" fell apart. Article does not say and it should. Possibly genesis of ISIL? And if so does this not assume success that they don't actually have yet? Sorry if my ignorance is somehow offensive, but the question is genuine; I truly do not know the answer and have other wikitasks so I don't want to attempt to find out.
  • We're citing Lawrence of Arabia the movie? Really? Is it a reliable source for what it is referencing? I have done just a little reading, not recently, on the topic and I have the impression that the movie was a bit Hollywood.
  • I disapprove of dailykos as a source. Surely there is something better?

Elinruby (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sykes–Picot Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

New Outline

OK, this page I think has a workable outline now, tho still needs quite a bit of work and tidy up. Feel free:) Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Reference 63 and 64 is dead

I can't seem to find other alternative sources though, but I will keep looking.

edit: Ref 63: video removed. Ref 64: YouTube account terminated

Haven't gotten down there yet, working my way down the article, maybe there is some more permanent type of source, web things tend to come and go (I was able to locate the video with a quick search, I will fix it later if I can't find anything better).Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Sykes-Picots oppression towards missing nation?

yes, 100 years after Sykes-Picot's oppression towards us and again we're getting oppressed by Wikipedia by not mentioning us in the article. people! we lost a lot with that agreement. show us some respect and mercy. I give you a clue. there was a land for Kurd's called Kurdistan. and they ruined it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omerjawhar (talk • contribs) 07:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I will take a look at that as well, if it was somehow a victim of line drawing or somehow else relevant, I will put something in the article. You can edit the article, you know, just follow the rules, you need to reliably source things that you put in and not just put in your own opinion (even if it's right:).Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Divide and conquer

Is this an example of dividing with the intention to conquer later? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.1.181 (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

As Hall put it....rather like "dividing the bear’s skin while the bear is still alive". The earlier Constantinople Agreement was another. Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sykes–Picot_Agreement/Archive_1&oldid=908695378"