Elie Kedourie’s study on this subject 1 is admirable. He exposed Lawrence’s deception and disallowed the claim that Damascus had been captured by the Arabs. Kedourie’s brilliance notwithstanding, his version cannot be regarded as definitive. He did not exhaust the Foreign and War Office files, nor did he consult the private papers of Allenby, Joyce, and others. Strangely, he also overlooked Hill’s enlightening biography of General Chauvel, 2 which is based on official and private Australian sources. These lacunae led him to mistaken conclusions, as I pointed out in Volume 1 of my study. 3 The event, however, is of some historical importance and, at the time, had major consequences on Middle Eastern diplomacy, since it became the source of ensuing difficulties between the British and the French and between the latter and the Arabs. The subject matter, therefore, warrants closer examination.