When Britain’s foreign secretary recently declared support for recognizing a Palestinian state, and France made a similar move days earlier, both framed their decisions as moral responses to the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Gaza. But these landmark shifts in policy are deeply entangled with the legacy of European colonialism—specifically, the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration, the New York Times reported.
Though never named in official statements, these century-old documents have shaped borders, alliances, and tensions in the Middle East for generations. As Britain and France now position themselves as advocates for Palestinian statehood, the question arises: are they correcting historical injustices, or simply trying to reassert influence in a region they once ruled?
The legacy of Sykes-Picot: carving up the Middle East
The Sykes-Picot Agreement, signed in secret in 1916 by Britain and France, divided the former Ottoman Empire’s Levantine territories into spheres of European control. It was a classic act of colonial self-interest—drawing lines with little regard for ethnic, tribal, or religious realities. The agreement laid the groundwork for later tensions in the region, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To many Arabs, Sykes-Picot remains a symbol of Western betrayal and imperial arrogance.
Today, historians argue that the chaos in Gaza, the contested borders, and the competing nationalist claims can all be traced, in part, to that early moment of division. “The history is so relevant,” said Eugene Rogan of Oxford University. “There’s always a chance for historical actors who screwed up in the past to make up for their mistakes.”
The Balfour Declaration: a promise only half-kept
A year after Sykes-Picot, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, supporting “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” But it also included a clause that promised not to prejudice “the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities.” That second half of the promise—protecting Palestinian rights—has largely gone unfulfilled.
Britain’s foreign secretary David Lammy cited Balfour in his recent remarks at the United Nations, arguing that recognition of Palestine would finally honour the second half of the deal. Lammy acknowledged Britain’s historical role in creating a homeland for Jews, but said the time had come to also support Palestinian statehood in a meaningful way.
France’s shifting loyalties in the Middle East
France, while less directly involved in early Palestinian governance, played a key role in arming and supporting Israel from 1945 through the 1960s—particularly during the Suez Crisis and early nuclear development. But by the late 1960s, France distanced itself from Israel and built stronger ties with the Arab world, including the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Today, France has become one of the most outspoken European governments in favour of Palestinian recognition. President Emmanuel Macron’s announcement, however, carries political risk: France is home to both the largest Jewish and the largest Muslim populations in Western Europe. Former ambassador Gérard Araud noted that France’s shifting stance on Israel created long-standing distrust in the region, which may now resurface.
America’s role and reaction
The United States, which replaced Britain and France as the main Western power in the Middle East after World War II, continues to back Israel strongly and has not followed Britain and France in recognizing Palestinian statehood. While the Biden administration has called for a two-state solution, it has remained silent on any immediate recognition of Palestine, prioritizing Israel’s security and domestic political pressures.
Yet, with more than three-quarters of the United Nations' member states now recognizing a Palestinian state, the U.S. risks becoming increasingly isolated diplomatically, even among its closest allies.
From imperial influence to diplomatic recalibration
Britain and France once drew the borders of the modern Middle East through imperial ambition. Today, their recognition of Palestine may be driven by a mix of humanitarian concern, historical reckoning, and a desire to remain relevant in a region they no longer control. Whether these decisions bring peace—or merely more political friction—remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the lines drawn in 1916 and the promises made in 1917 continue to shape the conflict more than a century later.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
