This statement was issued by the British Foreign Secretary and announced the Empire`s support for the creation of a national home for the Jewish people. However, the concept of a national homeland was not specified, and those who were involved in this plan to realize the wishes of the Zionists did not consult the non-Jewish population of Palestine. However, the vagueness inherent in the statement has sown the seeds of uncertainty and mistrust between the parties involved. Jerusalem rejected the plan despite the risk of jeopardizing its relations with Washington, and instead proposed a partial agreement with Egypt, the condition of which was Israel`s withdrawal from the Suez Canal and opened it up to international traffic, especially Israeli shipping. This agreement was also rejected by the Egyptians, who were unwilling to make peace with the Jewish state. Since libraries were written from books on middle Eastern history, this study does not attempt to recast it. Our goal is to present events and put them in a new light; Analyze decisions and understand why opportunities have been missed over and over again; explain the ongoing clashes between the Jewish state and Arab-Muslim countries; understand the reasons for the failure of peace talks with the Palestinians, the religious war between Sunnis and Shiites, and the fight against a global jihad. Syria, which signed a defense agreement with Egypt, desperately called Colonel Nasser and convinced him that Israel was preparing to launch a major operation against Damascus. The Egyptian Rais quickly put his troops on high alert; Nevertheless, Jerusalem had taken diplomatic steps to categorically deny the alleged accumulation of IDF troops on the northern border. The preference for the border, as established by an agreement, is consistent with the principle uti possidetis juris recently considered by the Chamber of the International Court of Justice in the Burkina Faso/Mali border dispute case (1986): “Its first aspect, emphasized by the Latin genitive juris, lies in the primacy accorded to the legal title over effective possession as the basis of sovereignty.” 4 The worst hypothesis that the proponents of the “end of Sykes-Picot” argument can make is that the peoples of the Middle East, in their struggle to determine their future and ensure their own stability, want a radically new map to govern them. It would be more useful and accurate not to give so much credence to the Sykes-Picot agreement.
His legacy explains little, if at all, the problems of the region today. On December 9, 2009, a tripartite meeting between Obama, Abbas and Netanyahu was held in Washington. The Israeli prime minister agreed to freeze construction in the settlements for 10 months. This freeze and the resumption of negotiations with the Palestinians did not lead to the conclusion of a viable agreement. Secretary of State John Kerry`s tireless efforts have also failed; The whole process was at an impasse. The agreement provided a general understanding of the British and French spheres of influence in the Middle East. The goal was to divide the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire (without the Arabian Peninsula) among themselves. Another source of concern is that, in this new situation, radical terrorist elements will be able to acquire much better weapons and capabilities. The range, payload, accuracy and quantities of missiles possessed by terrorist groups are constantly increasing, but this phenomenon also applies to other weapons such as missiles of all kinds and special operational capabilities. This will happen as a nuclear arms race could develop after the agreement between Iran and world powers over its nuclear program. Various internal disagreements, rivalries, hostilities and border conflicts have led to a marked split in the Arab-Muslim world.
It sparked a bloody confrontation between Islam`s two main faiths, shiites and Sunnis. This study is a summary of historical facts and, in particular, sheds new light on the many failures of the international community over the past century. With comments and observations, it is a reminder not to repeat the mistakes of the past. One hundred years ago, on May 16, Britain and France signed a secret agreement to divide the carcass of the dying Ottoman Empire, which has since become the epitome of imperialist madness in the Middle East – the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Since then, it has been a thorn in the side of Anglo-Arab relations. As an example of clumsy war planning for the consequences of victory, it certainly ranks with the recent failures in Iraq and Libya. This study is a summary of historical facts and aims to shed new light on the many failures of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and its implementation over the past century. With comments and observations, it is a reminder to avoid the naivety and mistakes of the past.
Experts at the Jerusalem Center also explain the reasons for the failure of Western countries to achieve lasting peace. Among the diplomatic treaties, we must highlight the agreements signed on January 3, 1919 between King Faisal bin Hussein and the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann. In a letter signed by King Faisal, he wrote: “The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist. Our movement is nationalist, not imperialist. There is room for both of us in Palestine. Even the modern borders of the Middle East are not completely unprecedented. Yes, they are the work of European colonial diplomats and officers – but these borders were not bizarre lines drawn on a blank map. They were largely based on the pre-existing political, social and economic realities of the region, including Ottoman units and administrative practices.
The true source of today`s Middle Eastern borders dates back to the San Remo Conference, which produced the Treaty of Sèvres in August 1920. Although Turkish nationalists opposed this agreement, the conference set in motion a process in which the League of Nations established British mandates over Palestine and Iraq in 1920 and a French mandate for Syria in 1923. The borders of the region were established in 1926 when the vilayet of Mosul – which the Arabs and Ottomans had long associated with al-Iraq al-Arabi (Arab Iraq), consisting of the provinces of Baghdad and Basra – was annexed to what was then called the Hashemite Kingdom of Iraq. Peace conference in Geneva after the Yom Kippur War. It ends on 31 May with a withdrawal agreement with Egypt. 2 douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/20/letting-go-of-sykes-picot/?_r=0 In order to obtain the consent of the French to this long-standing Russian desire to consolidate their position as the true heir of the fallen Eastern Roman Empire, some sort of quid pro quo would be needed. This was reflected in the French demand for recognition of their sphere of influence over the regions of Cilicia and Syria, including Palestine, which the Russians easily accepted. Such promises and agreements were made with often catastrophic consequences and little real consideration for the peoples who lived under the lines on a map that politicians and diplomats so eagerly drew.
Nasser`s courageous decision had a direct impact on the interests of France and Britain, dealing a fatal blow to their colonial prestige. All diplomatic attempts to force Nasser to rethink were doomed to failure. London and Paris have given up hope of getting American support against Nasser. The only remaining option was a military option. These agreements were neither peace treaties nor the end of hostilities, but they were an important first step towards a just and lasting peace, in accordance with Security Council resolution 338 of 22 October 1973. Since the attacks of the 11th. September 2001 in New York and Washington, the United States failed in its struggle against the “axis of evil” and failed to find alternatives to totalitarian regimes. .