A Line in the Sand

1. The Sykes-Picot Agreement Carved Up the Middle East, Ignoring Arab Aspirations

In the secret Sykes–Picot agreement they split the Ottomans’ Middle Eastern empire between them by a diagonal line in the sand that ran from the Mediterranean Sea coast to the mountains of the Persian frontier.

Secret division. The Sykes-Picot Agreement, a clandestine pact between Britain and France in 1916, divided the Ottoman Empire's Arab provinces into spheres of influence, disregarding existing ethnic and cultural boundaries. This agreement, negotiated by Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot, laid the groundwork for future conflicts by ignoring the aspirations of Arab populations for self-determination.

Arbitrary borders. The agreement created artificial borders that would later become the basis for modern Middle Eastern states. These borders often lumped together disparate groups and separated communities with shared identities, sowing the seeds of future instability. The agreement was a classic example of European powers prioritizing their own interests over the needs and desires of the people living in the region.

Betrayal of promises. The Sykes-Picot Agreement directly contradicted promises made to Arab leaders, such as Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who had been led to believe that they would be granted a large, independent Arab state in exchange for their support against the Ottoman Empire. This betrayal fueled Arab resentment and distrust of European powers.

2. British and French Imperial Rivalry Fueled the Arab-Israeli Conflict

What makes this venomous rivalry between Britain and France so important is that it fuelled today’s Arab–Israeli conflict.

Historical animosity. The rivalry between Britain and France, dating back centuries, played out in the Middle East as both powers sought to expand their influence and control strategic resources. This competition often manifested as undermining each other's policies and supporting opposing factions within the region. The Fashoda incident, where the two countries almost went to war over control of the Nile, is a prime example of this animosity.

Exploitation of tensions. Both Britain and France exploited existing tensions between Arabs and Jews to further their own agendas. Britain, for example, initially supported Zionist aspirations to secure its position in the Middle East, while France later secretly aided Jewish terrorist groups to undermine British rule. This manipulation of local conflicts exacerbated existing divisions and contributed to the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict.

Legacy of distrust. The legacy of British and French imperial rivalry continues to shape the Middle East today. The artificial borders, the manipulation of local conflicts, and the broken promises have all contributed to a climate of distrust and instability that persists to this day.

3. T.E. Lawrence's Arab Revolt Challenged European Colonial Ambitions

So far as Syria is concerned it is France and not Turkey that is the enemy.

Arab agency. T.E. Lawrence, a British officer, recognized the potential of Arab nationalism and sought to harness it to further British interests. He played a key role in organizing and leading the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire, aiming to create an independent Arab state that would serve as a British ally.

Conflicting visions. Lawrence's vision of an independent Arab state clashed with the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which envisioned French control over Syria. This conflict of interests led to tensions between Lawrence and British policymakers who were committed to honoring the agreement. Lawrence's actions, though intended to serve British interests, ultimately challenged the broader European colonial project in the Middle East.

Undermining French influence. Lawrence's efforts to promote Arab nationalism and create an independent Arab state directly threatened French ambitions in Syria. His actions, though ultimately unsuccessful in preventing French control, helped to sow the seeds of resistance and undermine French authority in the region.

4. The Balfour Declaration Complicated the Middle East Equation

What seemed at the time to be an ingenious way to outmanoeuvre France has had devastating repercussions ever since.

British support for Zionism. The Balfour Declaration, issued by the British government in 1917, declared its support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. This declaration, motivated by a desire to secure British interests in the region and gain support from Jewish communities, had far-reaching consequences.

Conflicting promises. The Balfour Declaration contradicted previous promises made to Arab leaders, who had been led to believe that they would be granted an independent Arab state in exchange for their support against the Ottoman Empire. This created a situation of conflicting promises and competing claims to the same territory.

Escalation of tensions. The Balfour Declaration fueled tensions between Arabs and Jews in Palestine, as both groups saw the declaration as a validation of their claims to the land. This escalation of tensions ultimately led to violence and conflict that continues to this day.

5. Oil Interests Intensified the Struggle for Control in Mosul and Beyond

The Power that controls the oil lands of Persia and Mesopotamia will control the source of supply of the majority of the liquid fuel of the future.

Strategic resource. The discovery of vast oil reserves in Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) transformed the region into a strategic prize for European powers. Britain, in particular, sought to control these resources to fuel its navy and maintain its dominance as a maritime power.

Conflicting claims. The desire to control Mosul's oilfields intensified the rivalry between Britain and France, as both powers sought to secure their access to this vital resource. This competition further complicated the already complex political landscape of the Middle East.

Long-term consequences. The struggle for control of oil resources continues to shape the Middle East today. The legacy of imperial competition and the exploitation of natural resources have contributed to instability and conflict in the region.

6. Post-WWI Mandates Created Instability and Resentment

Both powers were supposed to steer these embryonic countries to rapid independence, but they immediately began to drag their feet.

League of Nations mandates. Following World War I, the League of Nations granted Britain and France mandates over former Ottoman territories in the Middle East. These mandates were supposed to guide these territories towards independence, but in reality, they often served as a means for the European powers to maintain control.

Arab frustration. The failure of Britain and France to grant genuine independence to the mandated territories fueled Arab frustration and resentment. The perception that the European powers were simply replacing Ottoman rule with their own brand of colonialism led to widespread protests and uprisings.

Seeds of future conflict. The mandates created artificial states with arbitrary borders, often lumping together disparate groups and excluding others. This created a breeding ground for future conflicts, as different groups vied for power and resources within these newly created states.

7. Interwar Tensions Led to Violence and Shifting Alliances

Lacking neighbourly support, both France and Britain resorted to violent tactics to crush protest that only enraged the Arabs further.

Suppression of dissent. Both Britain and France resorted to violent tactics to suppress Arab dissent and maintain control over their mandated territories. These tactics, which included mass arrests, collective punishment, and the use of military force, only served to further alienate the Arab population.

Shifting alliances. As tensions escalated, different factions within the Arab world began to align themselves with either Britain or France, further exacerbating existing divisions. This created a complex web of alliances and rivalries that made it difficult to achieve stability in the region.

Cycle of violence. The interwar period was marked by a cycle of violence and repression, as both Britain and France sought to maintain control over their mandated territories. This cycle of violence further fueled Arab resentment and contributed to the ongoing instability in the Middle East.

8. World War II Created New Opportunities for Intrigue and Revenge

The fall of France in 1940, and the subsequent decision by the French in the Levant to back the Vichy government, ended both sides’ reluctance to interfere in one another’s problems.

Vichy France in the Levant. The fall of France in 1940 and the establishment of the Vichy government created a new dynamic in the Middle East. The Vichy French in the Levant, loyal to the collaborationist regime in France, became a potential threat to British interests in the region.

British intervention. To counter this threat, Britain and Free French forces invaded Syria and Lebanon in 1941, ousting the Vichy regime and installing a Free French administration. This intervention marked a turning point in the relationship between Britain and France in the Middle East, as both sides became increasingly willing to interfere in one another's affairs.

Post-war power struggles. Following World War II, Britain and France continued to vie for influence in the Middle East. This competition, fueled by historical rivalries and strategic interests, further complicated the region's political landscape and contributed to the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict.

9. The British Appeasement of Arabs Before WWII Backfired

Britain’s appeasement of the Arabs’ terrorism before the war had shown that violence worked.

Strategic calculation. In the years leading up to World War II, Britain sought to appease Arab leaders in an effort to secure their support against the Axis powers. This policy of appeasement often involved making concessions to Arab demands, such as restricting Jewish immigration to Palestine.

Encouraging violence. The British appeasement policy inadvertently encouraged violence by demonstrating that it could be an effective means of achieving political goals. Arab groups, seeing that violence had yielded results in the past, were more likely to resort to it in the future.

Undermining trust. The British appeasement policy undermined trust between Britain and both Arabs and Jews. Arabs felt that Britain was not doing enough to support their cause, while Jews felt that Britain was betraying its commitment to the creation of a Jewish national home.

10. The French Secretly Supported Zionist Terrorists to Oust the British

As this book reveals, the French now secretly offered support to Zionist terrorists who shared their determination to drive the British out of Palestine.

Alliance of convenience. Frustrated by British dominance in the Middle East, some French officials secretly offered support to Zionist terrorist groups who were fighting to end British rule in Palestine. This alliance of convenience was driven by a shared desire to undermine British influence in the region.

Fueling the conflict. French support for Zionist terrorism further escalated tensions between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. The violence perpetrated by these groups contributed to a climate of fear and distrust that made it increasingly difficult to achieve a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Long-term consequences. The French decision to support Zionist terrorism had a lasting impact on the Middle East. It helped to create the conditions for the establishment of the state of Israel, but it also contributed to the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict.

11. The Arab League's Formation Solidified Anti-Zionist Sentiment

The British had faced and crushed local uprisings inspired by Islam in India and the Sudan in the years before the war.

Pan-Arabism. The formation of the Arab League in 1945 represented a significant step towards greater Arab unity. The League, composed of independent Arab states, sought to promote cooperation and coordination on issues of common interest.

Opposition to Zionism. One of the primary goals of the Arab League was to oppose the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. The League saw Zionism as a threat to Arab interests and sought to prevent the creation of a Jewish state by any means necessary.

Regional conflict. The Arab League's opposition to Zionism helped to solidify anti-Jewish sentiment across the Arab world. This, in turn, contributed to the escalation of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the displacement of Palestinian Arabs.

12. The British Exit from Palestine Left a Legacy of Conflict

This book tries to explain how matters came to such a pass.

Unilateral withdrawal. Frustrated by the escalating violence and the failure to achieve a peaceful resolution, the British government announced its intention to withdraw unilaterally from Palestine in 1948. This decision left a power vacuum in the region and set the stage for the first Arab-Israeli war.

Legacy of division. The British withdrawal from Palestine left a legacy of division and conflict that continues to shape the Middle East today. The creation of the state of Israel and the displacement of Palestinian Arabs have created a deep-seated sense of grievance and resentment that has fueled decades of violence.

Unresolved issues. The British withdrawal from Palestine failed to address the underlying issues that had led to the conflict. The competing claims to the land, the lack of a clear border, and the absence of a just resolution for the Palestinian refugees have all contributed to the ongoing instability in the region.

Last updated: April 24, 2025