In his attack on Australian historians who dare to examine critically (or revise) accepted Anzac dogmas, Anzac cynics blind to reality: Historians of the Left fudge the facts to fit their own myth (22/4/14), The Australians' Nick Cater writes mockingly:
"Major General Herbert Cox must have been mistaken when he told officers departing for France in April 1916 they were fighting for 'the suppression of a tyrannical and brutal militarism, the refutation of the abominable doctrine that Might is Right, the defence of the rights of weaker nations, and the solemnity and binding nature of treaties'."
Fine sentiments indeed, Nick. However, in the case of the Arabs during and after WW1, that's all they were.
When it comes to a tyrannical and brutal militarism, the British and the French, in the case of Palestine and Syria respectively, simply replaced the Ottoman Turkish version with their own. The British, moreover, paved the way for the apartheid Zionist version which continues to plague Palestine and its neighbours to this day.
As for the solemnity and binding nature of treaties, the British failed to honour the Hussein-McMahon Treaty of 1915, in which they had promised independence in exchange for the Arab Revolt against the Turks (1916-18), and took over Palestine as a colony (or 'mandate' if you're into euphemisms).
Finally, with regard to the Palestinian rights of self-determination and independence, the British ignored these at every turn, preferring instead to flood Palestine with Zionist settlers who, in 1948, did away with them entirely and went on to rule Palestine according to the abominable doctrine that Might is Right.