Firstly, how on earth does any of this make it "incorrect" that the Ottomans were attacked by the Allies? It's a war, both sides attacked each other, Allied and Central.
The Ottoman Empire did not join the war untill they thought Germany was about to win, and then bombarded the Crimea without any provocation from the Russians, and when Russia demanded that the crew that did it be punished the Ottomans formally declared war, they launched the first stone, hence they where agressors during World War One.

The Arabs do have a pretty good reason to hate the redrawn borders. Ethnic and religious groups never meant to live with each other are suddenly put in the same nation (Iraq), while others are separated.

Now, there is fault of Arab nations of not being able to unite, though western hands aren't totally blameless either.
In other words you acknowledge the total failure of Baathism? Mesopatamia should not have been unified, however that is hardly the case of most Arab Countries. Baathism is not popular amongst most Arabs and so every Baathist ambition is doomed to failure.

The fall of the Ottoman Empire was in retrospect, a pretty significant event.
Certainly no more significant then the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

A humiliation of the Muslim world, a destruction of the remnants of unity (ever disintegrating since the 10th century), and the opening of the floodgates to many conflicts (both between Muslims and others). After all, the Ottoman Empire was much better in playing down differences between various groups. And perhaps most relevantly, it led to the downfall of traditional Sunni authority among Muslims (no more Caliph, scholars have their power destroyed). The subsequent failure of Pan-Arab nationalism led to the current ideology: a mix of the literalist brand Wahabi/Salafi Islam and 20th century revolutionary ideas, from Qutb to Azzam to bin Laden...
I am going to concede that Ottoman Authority was best at playing down differences between the groups (Turk, Arab, Muslim, Armenian, Muslim, Kurd, Jew, Shia etc etc etc) however internal events before World War One especially concerning the House of Saud and the rise of the CUP had already made that start to disintegrate (ever heard of the Armenian Genocide, or the wars between the Sauds and the local Shias?), and the rise of Wahhabism was linked to the durability of the House of Saud and their exporting of their ideology with oil money.

In response to: "failed to honor their promises for complete autonomy following WW1,"

This is a very poor argument.
No it isn't, do you even know what the treaties between the Hashashem's and Britain said? Perhaps you should read it yourself.

I'm sorry, but how is this the other option to: "fought wars (WW2 & Colonial spats) in Muslim Africa wherein the natives were casual targets for stray rounds,"
Yes it was such a crime of Britain to prevent Nazi Germany from conquering North Africa, that is such a legandery crime against humanity every Briton much apologize, note the extreme sarcasm. The fact that Nazi Germany wanted North Africa made fighting them there more then just, unless of course you wouldn't mind Germany winning the war since keeping the Suez Canal open was vital, I don't care what the collateral damage was Nazi Germany had to be stopped anywere and at any cost.

Nice character assassination though, but you failed to mention Germans.
? Did you even read what I said? the Nazi Revoly in Iraq also showed that they did have plenty of support in the Arab World, unless of course you are claiming Winstin Churchill lied in his memoirs which were given a positive review by George Orwell.

This is blatantly false.
No it isn't, unless of course you believe that 538,000 Jews is less then 397,000, while I am no Einstien I am sure that 538,000>397,000.

Now this is a loaded statement.
As is saying the Battle of Manzikert triggered the Crusades, that the Prophet Mohhamad massacred Jews at Khaybar, that the Ottomans commited the first Holocaust of the 20th century, however unfortunatley all of those statements are historical facts as well as loaded statements.

Well, I'd advise you to look up the scores of threads on the topic for more information.
Other people agree with my view is not an argument, it isn't even relevant to whatever the topic is.

While you're at it, look up the statements of some early Zionist leaders as well...
The forged one that many on your side bring up or authentic ones? You will be unpleasantly surprised by the authentic quotes.

See above...
Your above argument was not a good one, there are many who agree with my views as well may I use that as my argument as well?

Also, it is interesting, that anti-Semitism in the Arab world coincided with the rise of Zionism and peaked with the creation of Israel. It just wasn't there before that...
To quote you a patently false statement, you should broaden your horizen and read some accounts of the Arab World written by Jews both Medieval (Benjamin of Tudela) and modern (Bat Yeor) you may find that your generalization is not sufficiently accurate or helpful.