Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
July
@july
I feel this way about geographical borders Iraq / Syria / Iran: I’d like to talk to you about the Sykes-Picot Line
3 replies
1 recast
30 reactions
July
@july
Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) was a secret convention between Great Britain (Sykes) and France (Picot) that chopped up the Ottoman Empire into modern day Turkish-held Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine into various French and British-administered areas very arbitrarily drawing the lines - unaware of future consequences
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
July
@july
The arbitrary imposition of state boundaries produced by the Sykes-Picot Agreement generated a substantial incongruence between “territory” and “identity”
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
July
@july
So much so that the narrative for the existence of the Islamic State (IS) is a backlash against the decision of Sykes-Picot, decades later. IS claims they will reverse all borders and remove spheres of influence of the West under one caliphate (while ironically fully ignoring the “Kurdish Question”)
4 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Mohsin
@mnsis.eth
IS's demand to erase borders isn't directly linked to the Sykes-Picot Agreement; they operate from the notion that Islamic lands should be undivided, ruled as one state. Even if the division of Arab, Kurdish, and Persian lands was based on nationality, chosen by the people themselves, IS would still reject it.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Mohsin
@mnsis.eth
The issue isn't so much about Sykes-Picot as it is about the concept of a caliphate and the idea of a single, grand Islamic state.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
