Beyond Sykes-Picot: Why Simplistic Historical Narratives Hurt the Israel-Palestine Debate 

The article critiques the misuse of the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement in modern discussions on Palestinian statehood, warning against distorting history to support political narratives. It argues that framing Israel as a colonial byproduct ignores the Jewish people’s millennia-old connection to the land, predating both the Ottoman Empire and European imperialism. The article clarifies that Sykes-Picot had limited relevance to Mandatory Palestine, which was shaped by later agreements like the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate.

It also highlights the late emergence of Palestinian national identity, previously tied to broader Syrian Arab nationalism. Repeated Arab rejection of partition plans, such as in 1937 and 1947, and foundational hostility in documents like the PLO Charter, are presented as key obstacles to peace. The piece criticizes the selective use of colonialism to delegitimize Israel while overlooking similar origins of neighboring states like Jordan. Ultimately, the article calls for a more honest, nuanced historical approach—one that acknowledges complex legacies, respects both peoples’ aspirations, and focuses on present-day realities rather than outdated treaties.

Beyond Sykes-Picot: Why Simplistic Historical Narratives Hurt the Israel-Palestine Debate 

The recent invocation of the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement in discussions about recognizing a Palestinian state highlights a persistent problem: the weaponization of complex history to fit modern political narratives. While the New York Times column framed this century-old Anglo-French accord as the root of Middle Eastern strife and a justification for current diplomatic moves, this approach risks profound misunderstanding and obscures more than it illuminates. 

The Danger of the “Colonialist Smear” Narrative: 

The core critique of the column lies in its implied framing. By resurrecting Sykes-Picot – often simplistically portrayed as the epitome of European imperial map-drawing – in direct relation to Palestinian statehood, it subtly reinforces the trope that Israel itself is a colonial artifact. This overlooks critical historical realities: 

• The Jewish Connection Precedes Colonialism: Jewish ties to the land of Israel, particularly Judea and Samaria, stretch back millennia, long predating the Ottoman Empire, let alone European colonialism. Framing the establishment of Israel solely through the lens of post-WWI agreements ignores this deep, continuous historical and religious connection central to Jewish identity. 

• Sykes-Picot’s Limited Relevance to Palestine: Crucially, the Sykes-Picot map did not define Mandatory Palestine. The agreement envisaged an “international administration” for a smaller area approximating Palestine. This plan was rapidly overtaken by events: the Balfour Declaration (1917), the San Remo Conference (1920), and the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (1922). These instruments explicitly recognized the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and established the legal framework for a Jewish national home. Sykes-Picot became a historical footnote for Palestine long before 1948. 

• The Evolution of Arab Identity: Referring to “Palestinian claims” in the 1940s is anachronistic. As historical records show (including petitions to the King-Crane Commission and the 1920 riots demanding union with Syria), the Arab population in the region primarily identified as “Southern Syrians” until the 1920s and 1930s. The distinct Palestinian national identity solidified later, partly in response to Zionist immigration and British policy. Ignoring this evolution distorts the historical context of the conflict. 

Oversimplifying Rejection and Conflict: 

The column’s perspective also glosses over the repeated rejection of compromise by Arab leadership, a critical factor in the current impasse: 

• Rejection of Partition: Both the 1937 Peel Commission proposal and the 1947 UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181) were rejected by Arab leaders and states. The 1948 war, initiated by neighboring Arab states against the newly declared Israel, aimed to prevent partition altogether, not to establish a separate Palestinian state alongside Israel. 

• The PLO Charter’s Foundational Stance: Ignoring the historical record of rejection is compounded by overlooking the explicit language of foundational Palestinian documents. The 1968 PLO Charter defined Zionism as “imperialist,” “racist,” “expansionist,” “colonial,” and “illegitimate,” committing to its elimination. While subsequent agreements may have modified positions in practice, this historical ideological stance remains relevant to understanding deep-seated distrust and the challenges of recognition. 

The Hypocrisy of Selective Colonial Critique: 

If “artificial borders” born of colonialism are the benchmark for illegitimacy, where does that leave the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan? Created by colonial fiat on nearly 80% of the original Mandate territory designated for the Jewish national home, Transjordan (later Jordan) lacks the deep historical roots of a distinct national identity compared to the ancient Jewish connection west of the Jordan River. Singling out Israel while accepting Jordan’s borders highlights the inconsistency of applying the “colonial” label selectively. 

Towards a More Honest and Productive Discourse: 

Resurrecting Sykes-Picot to frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not just historically imprecise; it’s counterproductive. It: 

• Flattens Complex History: It reduces centuries of diverse history, multiple empires, evolving national identities, and specific international legal instruments into a simplistic “colonialism bad” narrative. 

• Delegitimizes Legitimate Claims: It implicitly undermines the authentic, millennia-old Jewish connection to the land by subsuming it under a colonial framework. 

• Ignores Agency and Choice: It downplays the decisive role of choices made by local actors – particularly the repeated Arab rejection of compromise and coexistence – in shaping the conflict’s trajectory. 

• Distracts from the Present: Focusing on 1916 draws attention away from the difficult, necessary work of addressing current realities, security concerns, mutual recognition, and the concrete steps needed for a viable two-state solution today. 

Conclusion: 

History is essential for understanding the present, but it must be engaged with nuance and accuracy. Using the Sykes-Picot Agreement as a blunt instrument to explain the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or to justify specific modern diplomatic initiatives like recognizing a Palestinian state, is a profound disservice. It perpetuates misleading tropes, ignores crucial context, and ultimately hinders the clear-eyed understanding necessary for genuine progress.

A lasting resolution requires confronting the full complexity of the past and the difficult choices of the present, moving beyond the oversimplified ghosts of a century-old, largely irrelevant, secret treaty. The path forward demands recognition of both peoples’ deep connections to the land and their legitimate aspirations for self-determination, grounded in the realities forged not in 1916, but through the consequential events and decisions of the subsequent century.