The Propaganda Trash that Forum Outcasts wanted you to swallow . Which many of you did.

[Roudy]

No one is speaking to you, Beelzebub.

Don’t understand donkey language, Abdullah. Shouldn‘t you be braying at a Hamas loving protest blocking airports?

 

[GLASNOST]

Shouldn‘t you be braying at a Hamas loving protest blocking airports?

There's no point. Jews aren't allowed within a 50km radius of this airport so there's no one to protest against.

 

[Shusha]

That is only your wishful thinking - the UN "self-determination" was and still is entirely meant for "indigenous" and ethnic groups that live "rightfully" and where "born" in a known and acknowledged historic homeland, ...

Oh. You mean like the Jewish people. The Jewish people who have lived in this particular historic homeland for 3000 years. The Jewish people whose history and culture is self-evident on the land, even in places where colonizing and invading cultures have built overtop existing historical Jewish places. The right to self-determination is a COLLECTIVE right belonging to all peoples in that collective. ONLY the indigenous peoples can determine who belongs to the collective. Outsiders do not get to choose who does and who does not belong to the collective. (See UNDRIP Preamble and Article 9. See also the Mandate for Palestine Preamble acknowledging the re-constitution of the Jewish national home).

Therefore this "right" would only have applied towards those Jews that had been "rightfully" living and born at the time in British Mandated Palestine, aka some 30 thousand in 1921 - Even those around 300,000 "legalized" Jews by the Brits in 1948 couldn't claim that "right", since none of them was born in Palestine, not even their parents, nor their grandparents.

This is factually incorrect. Belonging to the collective of an indigenous group is not based on residency or place of birth. And you should be very careful not to promote such a ridiculous idea, else the number of worldwide "Palestinians" be reduced to barely 30,000 and time will solve the issue of "right of return".

There is e.g. no Roma-land or Sinti-land, because both ethnicities can't document an acknowledged/historic homeland, were they have been born.

No - see above. E.g. those European "Ashkenazim" Jews - had never lived nor where they born in Palestine - just because a certain Roma group - living and born in Europe e.g. Romania, for the past 1500 years, can trace their roots back to India some 3000 years ago - does not imply a right towards self-determination in today's India.

The Jewish people can trace their roots back to Israel, Judea and Samaria 3000 years ago. Not only some vague notion of "roots" but language, laws, histories, holidays, rituals and ritual objects, clothing, particular foods, buildings, tombs, cities, roads which originated in that place - you know, all the things which create a culture, and therefore, by definition an indigenous peoples. One of the key features of an indigenous peoples is to be associated with a specific land or territory.

My understanding of the Romani people is that ties to an Indian origin are largely linguistic in nature. There has never been an association with a specific territory within their own culture. However, IF there was, they would absolutely have the right to re-constitute their homeland with self-determination.

 

[Kruska]

Oh. You mean like the Jewish people.

No not just - those Jews who lived and had been born in Palestine - aka around 30,000 thousand in 1921. But also 1.2 million Palestinian-Arabs in 1921.

The Jewish people who have lived in this particular historic homeland for 3000 years.

And the UN nor it's provision "for self-determination" cares about a person or ethnicity that has lived for 2000 years somewhere else - only Jews, their lobby in the UK and France in the 19th to 20th century, and their lobby in the USA.

The creation of the State of Israel, was only enabled via the blatant violation of the UN charter, the "holocaust guilt&pity syndrome" and the fact that no one wanted to take in those around 1.2 million displaced Jews after WW2.

Now that you understand this - you will have to acknowledge the Palestinian rights. Which encompass (not in regards to fairness and justice at all, since 50% of their 1947 defined territory has already been taken into possession by Israel) the Gaza and West-Bank territories - without any Jewish infringements aka illegal settlements.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now that you understand this - you will have to acknowledge the Palestinian rights. Which encompass (not in regards to fairness and justice at all, since 50% of their 1947 defined territory has already been taken into possession by Israel)

Their territory?

Why was Ottoman territory suddenly "Palestinian" before 1947?

If your landlord dies, you don't inherit the house.

 

[Shusha]

The creation of the State of Israel, was only enabled via the blatant violation of the UN charter, the "holocaust guilt&pity syndrome" and the fact that no one wanted to take in those around 1.2 million displaced Jews after WW2.

The State of Israel was created through the exact same mechanisms of recognition of inherent and existing rights to self-determination as other new States which were created during the period of time where empires were dismantled, long before WWII. You can't blame the Mandate for Palestine (1922) on the Shoah.

Now that you understand this - you will have to acknowledge the Palestinian rights. Which encompass (not in regards to fairness and justice at all, since 50% of their 1947 defined territory has already been taken into possession by Israel) the Gaza and West-Bank territories - without any Jewish infringements aka illegal settlements.

When have I not acknowledged Arab Palestinian rights? I have time and again said on this board and directly to you that I believe both peoples have equal rights. My argument is consistent. My argument does not make excuses for one side or the other. My argument follows international law. YOU are the one who keeps claiming that only one peoples have rights. You are the one demanding things for one side, and not the other. You are the one making "borders" where none exist and ignoring or falsifying international law.

Draw a line somewhere in the territory. Divide it. I don't even care where that line is (with one exception). One is Israel. The other is Palestine. Done. If you are going to ethnically cleanse the one, at least be equal and do the same with the other.

 

[Kruska]

The State of Israel was created through the exact same mechanisms of recognition of inherent and existing rights to self-determination as other new States which were created during the period of time where empires were dismantled, long before WWII. You can't blame the Mandate for Palestine (1922) on the Shoah.

You don't grasp the factual composition and understanding of "the Peoples rights to self-determination".

Nowhere is it stated that every single ethnicity has a right to an own place aka country. It encompasses ALL people living/born in a specific territory as one group.
Therefore Jews and Palestinian-Arabs (Muslims and Christians) and Bedouins are THE PEOPLE who have a right towards self-determination. As such the Jews will live in a new State, called e.g. Palestine together with 1,2 million others.

Check onto the creation of East-Timor - to get an understanding, and BTW, I was there with a UN mission.
Imagine if all -around 40 different ethnicities on East-Timor would have demanded their own respective countries - simply ridiculous. However THEY the PEOPLE, meaning ALL People living and born on East-Timor, have a "right towards self-determination", in one single territory aka country.

The complexity and idiocy in regards to Israel only came into being, due to Britain's promise to set up a homeland solely for Jews - to which they had no right at all, since they where not the Colonial masters and owners of Palestine - but simply given the UN mandate to govern Palestine. France never went into such an idiocy in e.g. Lebanon or Syria (e.g. granting "illegally" individual ethnicities such as e.g. Kurd's or Druse an own homeland), - but governed the respective territories as a mandated power for ALL People living and born there.

Fact is that the British "action" was in breach with the UN charter. It was however supported in majority by all other European Powers - e.g. Imperial Germany, France and Czarist Russia - who found it to be a great idea so as to rid themselves of their own Jews. Thus the idea kept going. However the PEOPLE were never asked about this Jewish homeland. when they were finally "asked", the PEOPLE - in vast majority Palestinians and Arabs - refuted this "proposal".

And Ben Gurion was very well aware about these "factual" circumstances that would never allow for a Jewish State - and decided to take "illegal" action via a well trained military force, enabling him to "enforce" a State of Israel - who's recognition by the UN in 1949 is a fact. (independent of right or wrong).

Draw a line somewhere in the territory. Divide it. I don't even care where that line is (with one exception). One is Israel. The other is Palestine. Done. If you are going to ethnically cleanse the one, at least be equal and do the same with the other.

As I had stated already before - there is no need to discuss or to place a border "somewhere". The Palestinian-Arab territory of Gaza and the West-bank are well known to everyone - latest by those drawn in 1949. The illegal Jewish settlements in the West-bank need to be handed over to the Palestinians. There is far too much hatred, and agitation on both sides since 75 years, so as to "dream" of a peaceful coexistence.

Maybe and hopefully both sovereign States can negotiate in the future (maybe in 10 years+) about allowing the respective groups to live with each other in both sovereign States - finally resulting one day in a common State - such as the UN provision for "the Peoples right of self-determination" was factually intended for.

However IMO - this will never happen as long as a Zionist government in Israel, (not to mention radical Zionists) are in power.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't grasp the factual composition and understanding of "the Peoples rights to self-determination".

Nowhere is it stated that every single ethnicity has a right to an own place aka country. It encompasses ALL people living/born in a specific territory as one group.
Therefore Jews and Palestinian-Arabs (Muslims and Christians) and Bedouins are THE PEOPLE who have a right towards self-determination. As such the Jews will live in a new State, called e.g. Palestine together with 1,2 million others.

Check onto the creation of East-Timor - to get an understanding, and BTW, I was there with a UN mission.
Imagine if all -around 40 different ethnicities on East-Timor would have demanded their own respective countries - simply ridiculous. However THEY the PEOPLE, meaning ALL People living and born on East-Timor, have a "right towards self-determination", in one single territory aka country.

The complexity and idiocy in regards to Israel only came into being, due to Britain's promise to set up a homeland solely for Jews - to which they had no right at all, since they where not the Colonial masters and owners of Palestine - but simply given the UN mandate to govern Palestine. France never went into such an idiocy in e.g. Lebanon or Syria (e.g. granting "illegally" individual ethnicities such as e.g. Kurd's or Druse an own homeland), - but governed the respective territories as a mandated power for ALL People living and born there.

Fact is that the British "action" was in breach with the UN charter. It was however supported in majority by all other European Powers - e.g. Imperial Germany, France and Czarist Russia - who found it to be a great idea so as to rid themselves of their own Jews. Thus the idea kept going. However the PEOPLE were never asked about this Jewish homeland. when they were finally "asked", the PEOPLE - in vast majority Palestinians and Arabs - refuted this "proposal".

And Ben Gurion was very well aware about these "factual" circumstances that would never allow for a Jewish State - and decided to take "illegal" action via a well trained military force, enabling him to "enforce" a State of Israel - who's recognition by the UN in 1949 is a fact. (independent of right or wrong).

As I had stated already before - there is no need to discuss or to place a border "somewhere". The Palestinian-Arab territory of Gaza and the West-bank are well known to everyone - latest by those drawn in 1949. The illegal Jewish settlements in the West-bank need to be handed over to the Palestinians. There is far too much hatred, and agitation on both sides since 75 years, so as to "dream" of a peaceful coexistence.

Maybe and hopefully both sovereign States can negotiate in the future (maybe in 10 years+) about allowing the respective groups to live with each other in both sovereign States - finally resulting one day in a common State - such as the UN provision for "the Peoples right of self-determination" was factually intended for.

However IMO - this will never happen as long as a Zionist government in Israel, (not to mention radical Zionists) are in power.

Nowhere is it stated that every single ethnicity has a right to an own place aka country. It encompasses ALL people living/born in a specific territory as one group.
Therefore Jews and Palestinian-Arabs (Muslims and Christians) and Bedouins are THE PEOPLE who have a right towards self-determination. As such the Jews will live in a new State, called e.g. Palestine together with 1,2 million others.

Could have happened. But the Arabs fucked up.

 

[Kruska]

Their territory?

yes - according to the UN partition plan of 1947

Why was Ottoman territory suddenly "Palestinian" before 1947?

Because the British brought back that term
Balfour Declaration, statement on November 2, 1917, of British support for ‘the establishment in Palestine of a national home for Jewish people.
Furthermore:
The declaration specifically stipulated that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

If your landlord dies, you don't inherit the house.

Your landlord does NOT represent a country, nor a government, and is therefore not under UN jurisdiction, or governed by International Law.

 

[Kruska]

Nowhere is it stated that every single ethnicity has a right to an own place aka country. It encompasses ALL people living/born in a specific territory as one group.
Therefore Jews and Palestinian-Arabs (Muslims and Christians) and Bedouins are THE PEOPLE who have a right towards self-determination. As such the Jews will live in a new State, called e.g. Palestine together with 1,2 million others.

Could have happened. But the Arabs fucked up.

No, they were never asked in 1917 nor in 1921 - and when they were finally asked in 1947 - they refuted the proposal of a sovereign Jewish State in Palestine - aka the UN Partition Plan of 1947.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

yes - according to the UN partition plan of 1947

Because the British brought back that term
Balfour Declaration, statement on November 2, 1917, of British support for ‘the establishment in Palestine of a national home for Jewish people.
Furthermore:
The declaration specifically stipulated that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

Your landlord does NOT represent a country, nor a government, and is therefore not under UN jurisdiction, or governed by International Law.

yes - according to the UN partition plan of 1947

The Arabs refused to even talk about taking the UN offer.

Because the British brought back that term

You're confused. The Ottoman land owners lost the land.
The Arabs living there didn't inherit it. It was never "Palestinian" land.

The declaration specifically stipulated that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

And then the invading Arab armies fucked it up.

Your landlord does NOT represent a country

Neither do the Palestinians.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, they were never asked in 1917 nor in 1921 - and when they were finally asked in 1947 - they refuted the proposal of a sovereign Jewish State in Palestine - aka the UN Partition Plan of 1947.

No, they were never asked in 1917 nor in 1921

Why would they be asked?

- and when they were finally asked in 1947

They were surprised that they would be asked to build a nation, after
they saw the Jews working toward a nation for years (decades)?

they refuted the proposal of a sovereign Jewish State in Palestine -

Refused? Yes, they did. How did that work out for them?

 

[Kruska]

yes - according to the UN partition plan of 1947

The Arabs refused to even talk about taking the UN offer.

Exactly - as I had stated - THEY REJECTED the proposal. BTW since 1917, because the Brits had promised them their own State in 1915.

Do you even understand the difference between being "invited" and "participating"in a negotiation - or simply being confronted with a proposal, worked out and presented solely by a foreign entity?

Because the British brought back that term

You're confused. The Ottoman land owners lost the land.
The Arabs living there didn't inherit it. It was never "Palestinian" land.

I see - so those American colonialist under British rule, didn't own anything, especially no land and houses - how ignorant are you?

The declaration specifically stipulated that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

And then the invading Arab armies fucked it up.

Not totally - since e.g. Jordan manged to secure the West-bank in 1948 against Zionist aggression, and Egypt manged to safeguard Gaza from the Zionists.

Your landlord does NOT represent a country

Neither do the Palestinians.

Update yourself - before posting plain nonsense.

 

[Roudy]

There's no point. Jews aren't allowed within a 50km radius of this airport so there's no one to protest against.

They’re doing a good job making America hate their terrorist loving asses even more.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exactly - as I had stated - THEY REJECTED the proposal. BTW since 1917, because the Brits had promised them their own State in 1915.

Do you even understand the difference between being "invited" and "participating"in a negotiation - or simply being confronted with a proposal, worked out and presented solely by a foreign entity?

I see - so those American colonialist under British rule, didn't own anything, especially no land and houses - how ignorant are you?

Not totally - since e.g. Jordan manged to secure the West-bank in 1948 against Zionist aggression, and Egypt manged to safeguard Gaza from the Zionists.

Update yourself - before posting plain nonsense.

Exactly - as I had stated - THEY REJECTED the proposal.

How'd that work out for them?

BTW since 1917, because the Brits had promised them their own State in 1915.

They got Jordan on 77% of the mandate territory.

Do you even understand the difference between being "invited" and "participating"in a negotiation

I do understand. The Arabs were invited to create their own nation on about half the
territory left after Jordan was created.

They refused. They fucked up.

I see - so those American colonialist under British rule, didn't own anything, especially no land and houses - how ignorant are you?

Did the Tories get to keep their land after they lost?

Not totally - since e.g. Jordan manged to secure the West-bank in 1948 against Zionist aggression, and Egypt manged to safeguard Gaza from the Zionists.

Right. They fucked up partially in 1948 and then further in 1967.

Update yourself - before posting plain nonsense.

I updated myself. And when I looked again, Palestine still wasn't a country.

 

[Shusha]

You don't grasp the factual composition and understanding of "the Peoples rights to self-determination".

I don't "grasp" it, because your definition of "peoples' does not exist in international law. You are making it up whole cloth.

Nowhere is it stated that every single ethnicity has a right to an own place aka country.

No where is it stated that some ethnicities should be denied the right to self-determination and sovereignty because * waves vaguely at Jewish *. There are very specific conditions required in international law for Statehood. They apply equally to all peoples. International law, and just reality, leans heavily into if a peoples can fulfil the conditions, they get a State. See below. And again, I am going to point out that I am applying this concept in all circumstances. You are the one trying to create exceptions * waves vaguely at Jewish *. If you want to create a template for which an indigenous ethnic or cultural group should be refused under any circumstances a right to self-determination, please, by all means provide your criteria in objective terms.

It encompasses ALL people living/born in a specific territory as one group.

This is patently ridiculous. The whole point of self-determination (especially in the dissolution of empires) is the separation of distinct peoples. There is no "specific territory" until the territory is divided between the distinct peoples. This is how Czechoslovakia becomes Czechia and Slovakia. India becomes India and Pakistan and Bangladesh. Spain might one day be Spain and Catalonia. San Marino, anyone? There are literally dozens of old countries and hundreds of new ones that we can apply this concept to. Some of them are tiny little countries. Some of them are still struggling for independence.

Let's use Canada as an example. Because, why not? Canada, shrug. ALL the people living/born in Canada are NOT one group. (Hence, the need for self-determination. If there was no need for self-determination, well, then, it would just be Canada, and why are we even having this conversation?) We divide Canada into the three obvious new "States": Canada, Quebec, and let's say an independent coalition of First Nations (simply for ease of conversation). But then let's say that the Bretons of Canada also desire their own self-determination in the form of an independent sovereign nation. Yes or no? Defend your position.

Fact is that the British "action" was in breach with the UN charter.

Wait, what? The British breached the 1945 UN charter in 1922? I want that time machine. Bring me.

 

[Kruska]

Exactly - as I had stated - THEY REJECTED the proposal.

How'd that work out for them?

Badly - since the Zionist used force and violence to rob them of their land in 1948, and since 1968 of their remaining land.

BTW since 1917, because the Brits had promised them their own State in 1915.

They got Jordan on 77% of the mandate territory.

They??? Palestinians? or Hashemite and Arab-Bedouins being placed under a British Protectorate in Trans-Jordan in 1921 ?

Do you even understand the difference between being "invited" and "participating"in a negotiation

I do understand. The Arabs were invited to create their own nation on about half the
territory left after Jordan was created.

No - you only proof that you don't understand anything in regards to that issue.
And again there was no representation on behalf of the Palestinian people.

I see - so those American colonialist under British rule, didn't own anything, especially no land and houses - how ignorant are you?

Did the Tories get to keep their land after they lost?

I guess yes - if it was bought legally - and I also don't care, since that was not part of your initial dumb statement.

Not totally - since e.g. Jordan manged to secure the West-bank in 1948 against Zionist aggression, and Egypt manged to safeguard Gaza from the Zionists.

Right. They fucked up partially in 1948 and then further in 1967.

Israel fucked up by attacking Egypt in 1956 - and then having to retreat all the way.
And the wars of the Arab league and Egypt against Israel, have NOTHING to do with establishing a Palestine for Palestinians.

You are like a frantic hamster in a cage - biting everything and throwing around all kinds of garbage.

Update yourself - before posting plain nonsense.

I updated myself. And when I looked again, Palestine still wasn't a country.

Certainly not - keep reading and educating yourself - instead of continuously posting irrelevant garbage.

e.g.

Palestine - Split Admin, West Bank, Gaza Strip

Palestine - Split Admin, West Bank, Gaza Strip: In the years that followed, tensions between Hamas and Fatah dominated Palestinian politics. Elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council were held in 2006, and Hamas won a surprise victory over Fatah. Hamas and Fatah eventually formed a...

www.britannica.com

November 2012
UNITED NATIONS The United Nations voted overwhelmingly Thursday to recognize a Palestinian state, a long-sought victory for the Palestinians but an embarrassing diplomatic defeat for the United States.

The resolution upgrading the Palestinians' status to a nonmember observer state at the United Nations was approved by a more than two-thirds majority of the 193-member world body -- a vote of 138-9, with 41 abstentions. The Vatican is the only other entity in the U.N. that shares the same status.

 

[Shusha]

As I had stated already before - there is no need to discuss or to place a border "somewhere". The Palestinian-Arab territory of Gaza and the West-bank are well known to everyone - latest by those drawn in 1949.

Oh, there is very much a need to discuss borders. Why? Let's empty the bucket right quick with:

1. UNGA resolutions are not binding on the Arabs (who rejected them) OR Israel. (NOT borders).

2. The 1949 Armistice lines between Jordan and Israel explicitly can't be used as borders, according to the agreement itself. (NOT borders).

3. There IS an international border between Israel and Jordan which defines Israel's territory. (Other borders being NOT borders).

There are a LOT of NOT borders. What there seems to be a lack of is, you know, actual borders dividing the sovereign territory of Israel between Israel and some imagined future Palestine. Funny enough, the international contracts agreed to between the government of Israel and the representative of the Palestinian people all say the same thing - there are no borders, the borders will have to be negotiated in permanent peace agreements.

"Well known to everyone" is not factually international law, you know.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Badly - since the Zionist used force and violence to rob them of their land in 1948, and since 1968 of their remaining land.

They??? Palestinians? or Hashemite and Arab-Bedouins being placed under a British Protectorate in Trans-Jordan in 1921 ?

No - you only proof that you don't understand anything in regards to that issue.
And again there was no representation on behalf of the Palestinian people.

I guess yes - if it was bought legally - and I also don't care, since that was not part of your initial dumb statement.

Israel fucked up by attacking Egypt in 1956 - and then having to retreat all the way.
And the wars of the Arab league and Egypt against Israel, have NOTHING to do with establishing a Palestine for Palestinians.

You are like a frantic hamster in a cage - biting everything and throwing around all kinds of garbage.

Certainly not - keep reading and educating yourself - instead of continuously posting irrelevant garbage.

e.g.

Palestine - Split Admin, West Bank, Gaza Strip

Palestine - Split Admin, West Bank, Gaza Strip: In the years that followed, tensions between Hamas and Fatah dominated Palestinian politics. Elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council were held in 2006, and Hamas won a surprise victory over Fatah. Hamas and Fatah eventually formed a...

www.britannica.com

November 2012
UNITED NATIONS The United Nations voted overwhelmingly Thursday to recognize a Palestinian state, a long-sought victory for the Palestinians but an embarrassing diplomatic defeat for the United States.

The resolution upgrading the Palestinians' status to a nonmember observer state at the United Nations was approved by a more than two-thirds majority of the 193-member world body -- a vote of 138-9, with 41 abstentions. The Vatican is the only other entity in the U.N. that shares the same status.

Badly - since the Zionist used force and violence to rob them of their land in 1948

They didn't have any land before 1948, how could they be robbed of it?

They??? Palestinians? or Hashemite and Arab-Bedouins being placed under a British Protectorate in Trans-Jordan in 1921 ?

You said the British offered the Arabs their own state. They got one, Jordan.

And again there was no representation on behalf of the Palestinian people.

The British said the Jews could have a state and the Arabs could have a state.
The Jews worked to create a state, the Arabs pouted, stomped their feet and said,
"No fair, we want all the land"

The Arabs refused to play, why would they get representation after they refused?

I guess yes - if it was bought legally

You guess the British who fought the colonists got to keep their land? Hilarious!

And the wars of the Arab league and Egypt against Israel, have NOTHING to do with establishing a Palestine for Palestinians.

Arab losers losing don't help other Arab losers establish a new Arab nation.

Certainly not - keep reading and educating yourself - instead of continuously posting irrelevant garbage.

Palestine isn't a nation. Palestine was never a nation. Definitely relevant.

UNITED NATIONS The United Nations voted overwhelmingly Thursday to recognize a Palestinian state, a long-sought victory for the Palestinians but an embarrassing diplomatic defeat for the United States.

That is awesome! Which neighbors do they have border agreements with?
What is their currency? What is the exchange rate with the dollar?
What was their inflation rate last year?

 

[Kruska]

I don't "grasp" it, because your definition of "peoples' does not exist in international law. You are making it up whole cloth.

The right to self-determination refers to a people’s right to choose its political, economic, and social status.

And I had already stated to you, that "the people" constitute ONLY those people that live and have been born in a territory that has a historical documented and acknowledged sovereign past, but is ruled by a foreign entity. In that case British mandated Palestine.

As such around 30,000 Jews and 1.2 million others - living in British Mandated Palestine in 1921, would have formed the basis of the "legible" voter pool. E.g. 18 and above - women and man - or just man.
And if e.g. 1.2 million do not acknowledge a separation of THEIR historic homeland (which 30,000 favor) the UN has NO right and NO mandate to enforce this minority request/demand - that totally lost out in a national vote.

I gave you the example of East-Timor - if you can't read and comprehend, then that is not my problem.

There are more then 40 ethnicity groups on East-Timor who can ONLY be represented via political parties.

As such any "registered" or "acknowledged" political party, aka "registered" ethnic group is legible to vote on and for their own - If however the PEOPLE (all parties) and in the case of East-Timor, the Fretilin party and it's coalition partners receives 97% of the PEOPLES votes to form a single country - then some individual political - ethnical group, gaining 3%, and demanding an own country is INVALID. - they lost out bitterly to the will of the Peoples majority in a democratic election.

So which Palestine registered political parties would have voted for a single state? IMO ALL (more then 51% for sure) - except for the Zionist party gaining 3%
As such the majority of the PEOPLE in British Palestine has denied a total minority to set up their own shop.

As I had stated you do not grasp the democratic concept and the political voting process in regards to establishing a sovereign country, by it's People.