Here is more BBC spin from the same article:-
“But there were three problems with the geo-political order that emerged from the Sykes-Picot agreement.First, it was secret without any Arabic knowledge, and it negated the main promise that Britain had made to the Arabs in the 1910s – that if they rebelled against the Ottomans, the fall of that empire would bring them independence.”
The McMahon agreement did not include land that “cannot be said to be purely Arab”. Now the arabs may have thought that the whole of Palestine was arab BUT this was not the view of the British (as the subsequent Balfour declaration makes evident).
The arabs just misread the McMahon agreement because of their blinkered local interpretation of the words of the agreement. Tough.
The BBC does not report this but instead makes the accusatory “negated the main promise” of the Sykes Picot agreement. Really! . Sykes-Picot may have not been apparent to the arabs but then again, it was not concluded with them, was it? There was no Sykes -Picot promise to the arabs However, we stuck to the McMahon agreement, it’s just that the arabs weren’t deft enough at that time to understand what the agreement entailed.
Now if one wishes to dispute this, well, the fact is that it was the league of Nations that gave Palestine to the British as a mandate so that the McMahon agreement/Balfour declaration/Sykes-Picot tussle is actually pretty much out of the picture.
So, the BBC spin looks worse by accusing the British of negating the main McMahon promise when it was the league of Nations that actually made the running in the end.