Historical promises and subsequent betrayals by European powers—primarily the United Kingdom and France—constitute the foundational narrative that defines modern Arab perceptions of Europe’s role as one marked by duplicity, self-interest, and a fundamental disregard for Arab national aspirations.

This historical legacy, rooted in the period surrounding World War I and the Mandate era, has fostered a deep and abiding skepticism and resentment toward European intentions, which significantly impacts contemporary Euro-Arab relations.

The Original Betrayals: The Triple Contradiction

The single most defining moment for Arab perceptions of Western, and particularly European, dishonesty stems from the triple set of contradictory promises made by Britain during World War I regarding the territories of the crumbling Ottoman Empire:

1. The Promise to the Arabs: The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence (1915–1916)

During the war, Britain, through correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon and Sharif Hussein bin Ali, the Emir of Mecca, encouraged the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire. The promise was clear: in exchange for their military assistance, the Arabs would be granted a unified, independent Arab state stretching from Syria to Yemen. This promise was interpreted by Arab nationalists as an unequivocal commitment to their right to self-determination and the establishment of a single Arab kingdom. The Arabs fought, suffered casualties, and contributed materially to the Ottoman defeat, viewing their struggle as a path to independence.

2. The Secret Agreement: The Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916)

Simultaneously, and in direct contradiction to the promise made to Hussein, Britain was secretly negotiating with France and, initially, Tsarist Russia. The Sykes-Picot Agreement was a colonial-era deal to carve up the Ottoman Empire's Arab provinces into predetermined spheres of influence and direct control.

• France was allocated the mandate for a large portion of the northern Levant, including modern-day Syria and Lebanon.

• Britain secured control over southern Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq), Transjordan, and a strip of Palestine.

The exposure of this secret treaty by the Bolsheviks in 1917 confirmed Arab suspicions of European duplicity. For the Arabs, the agreement was not merely a territorial dispute but a profound act of treachery—a cynical manipulation of their nationalist fervor for European imperial gain. To this day, "Sykes-Picot" remains a byword across the Arab world for ruthless, arbitrary foreign intervention and a primary cause of the region’s fragmented political landscape.

3. The Promise to Zionists: The Balfour Declaration (1917)

To further complicate the situation, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration, a public statement affirming support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," while vaguely adding that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities."

• This promise to the burgeoning Zionist movement was made even though Palestine had been secretly designated as an international zone or under British control in the Sykes-Picot map, and its population was overwhelmingly Arab.

• The Arabs perceived this as the final, and most damaging, betrayal, as it introduced an external, European-backed project (Zionism) onto land they believed was unequivocally promised for their independent Arab state.

The triple promise laid the foundation for a century of conflict and cemented the perception that European policy in the Middle East is inherently dishonest—a view where high-minded rhetoric is merely a mask for calculated self-interest and colonial ambition.

The Mandate Era: Imposed Sovereignty and Institutional Scars

Following World War I, the League of Nations formalized European control through the Mandate System (1920). While nominally intended to prepare the territories for self-rule, the Mandates were viewed by Arab populations in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon as thinly veiled colonialism, reinforcing the broken promise of full independence.

• Iraq (British Mandate): Britain installed a monarchy and created a state that merged three diverse Ottoman provinces (Basra, Baghdad, Mosul) to secure oil interests and transportation routes, setting the stage for future internal sectarian and ethnic tensions.

• Syria and Lebanon (French Mandate): France intentionally carved Lebanon out of Greater Syria and promoted sectarian divisions to maintain control, using a classic "divide and rule" strategy. This institutionalized sectarianism contributed directly to Lebanon’s later civil wars and Syria’s prolonged instability.

• Palestine (British Mandate): The Mandate in Palestine was defined by the inherent contradiction of the Balfour Declaration, forcing Britain to manage two incompatible national movements. Britain's eventual failure to resolve this led to the 1948 war, the creation of Israel, and the Palestinian Catastrophe (Nakba), which is seen by Arabs as the most direct and ongoing tragic consequence of European betrayal.

The Mandate era taught Arabs that European-imposed institutions and borders were designed to fragment Arab unity and deny true political self-determination.

Contemporary Perceptions: The Shadow of the Past

The deep historical memory of these betrayals continues to inform how the Arab world views the current role of European states and the European Union (EU).

1. Inconsistent Norms and Moral Hypocrisy

Arab public opinion often accuses Europe of moral hypocrisy, citing the stark contrast between its professed commitment to democracy and human rights and its pragmatic foreign policy decisions.

• The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The single greatest determinant of European credibility is the ongoing conflict. Europe’s difficulty in applying consistent pressure or sanctions against Israeli policies that violate international law—a reluctance often rooted in the historical memory of the Holocaust (especially for Germany) and a desire to avoid geopolitical friction with the U.S.—is widely perceived in the Arab world as a continuation of the initial Balfour betrayal. For many Arabs, Europe's perceived failure to secure justice for Palestinians is proof that European norms are selective and subordinate to historical or geopolitical interests.

• Support for Autocrats: During the 20th and 21st centuries, European nations frequently prioritized stability over democracy, supporting autocratic regimes in the Arab world (e.g., in Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco) to secure energy supplies, trade, and migration control. This realpolitik approach is seen as a modern replication of the colonial-era strategy of backing local elites to protect European interests, regardless of the suppression of popular will.

2. Disregard for Arab Agency

From the Sykes-Picot map being drawn without Arab consultation to modern-day policies that focus on managing regional conflicts (like Libya or Syria) or controlling migration flows to Europe, a recurring perception is that Arab populations are still treated as objects of European policy rather than sovereign subjects.

• Intervention in the Syrian Civil War or the 2011 intervention in Libya were met with mixed reactions, but the lasting impression remains that these actions were driven by a European agenda (humanitarian, counter-terrorism, geopolitical) rather than a genuine, sustained effort to empower local populations to chart their own course.

3. The "Original Sin" of Fragmentation

The widespread belief that European powers created weak, artificial states remains a potent ideological force. The rise of groups like ISIS, which explicitly declared the "end of Sykes-Picot" upon erasing borders, demonstrates how the historical betrayal remains a powerful rallying cry and a core explanation for regional dysfunction. This perspective translates into a deep-seated suspicion of any European-backed initiative, whether for regional integration, economic assistance, or political reform.

In conclusion, for many Arabs, Europe’s historical role is a continuous narrative, not a series of discrete events. The promises of unity and self-determination were brutally betrayed by the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration, creating political and territorial scars in Palestine, Iraq, and Syria that have never truly healed. This legacy means that contemporary European policy, no matter how progressive its language, is often viewed through a lens of deep historical distrust, where past actions are considered the most reliable predictor of future intent.