In essence, London was engaging in divide-and-conquer tactics. Which interpretation do you think is the most accurate appraisal? Explain your reasoning.
Britain made numerous, often conflicting, territorial pledges to Arabs, Jews, and other European Powers during the course of World War I. Generally speaking, we can interpret Britain’s motives for making these agreements in one of three ways:
-Britain needed to win the war, which required making as many allies as possible. It worried about the long-term consequences of these agreements later.
-Britain retained an actual desire to see a peaceful Middle East. As such, it was trying to find a solution where the interests of the Allies and those of the region’s populations were preserved.
-Britain was purposefully making conflicting promises with the intent of pitting several groups against each other. In essence, London was engaging in divide-and-conquer tactics.
Which interpretation do you think is the most accurate appraisal? Explain your reasoning. There are no right or wrong answers. You are also welcome to offer your own speculation about Britain’s motives.
In 2014 the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) announced its intent to “overturn” the borders imposed by the Sykes-Picot Agreement and re-establish a caliphate. Why do you think ISIS cited Sykes-Picot? Explain your reasoning.