Sykes-Picot

Submitted by Martin Schaffel (United States), May 9, 2016 at 11:17

When the world goes to war, the winner has the power to do what they want with the people and real estate they have conquered. At the end of WWII, the Soviet Union had conquered and controlled almost half of Europe real estate and considered it part of their empire. After many wars, Israel conquered Arab lands and considered those lands part of Israel. Both the Soviet Union and Israel were invaded by others, fought the invaders, shed their blood and became the winning participant in the conflicts. One might say that by the shedding of their blood caused by the action of an aggressor, they both have the right to consider the real estate they conquered as part of their empire.

When wars are won, power rules, not the voice of the people. Innocent people are trapped between the winner and loser and have no voice in determining the agreements made for peace.
The Sykes-Picot agreement was concerned about empire expansion brought about by the winning of and shedding of blood in WWI. The people of the Middle East had no part to play in this agreement and were just pawns in the power game.

Today, human nature remains as it was then. Power rules and innocent people are still trapped between the warring parties. Only a moral and just culture would make the innocent people's voice a part of any peace agreement. Are there any left on this earth?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".