All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[rylah]

The Islamic problem.

This is not a religious conflict.

That’s just another of your goofy, canned slogans that is refuted by the Hamas Charter and Islamic clerics.

Islamics clearly frame the conflict in terms of religion. Read the Hamas Death Cult Charter. It's a religious conflict from the perspective of your Death Cult heroes in Hamas.

This conflict is 70 years older than Hamas.

Hamas is just Israel's current boogyman.

The above is more reiteration of slogans you use. You are hoping to sidestep around Hamas citing that "Pal'istan" is an islamist waqf. I'll lend an assist an explain to you that Arabs-Moslems believe that land occupied, once held by, or conquered in gee-had forever becomes an entitlement by Allah to Moslems. Such land, even if not currently occupued by Moslems, must eventually be re-taken by gee-had.

You can deny that your Allah god has anything to do with the Islamist "religion" but that woukd make sense only to you.


Article 13: " There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."
^^^^ Where does that come from? What is gee-had? Shirley, you have a YouTube tube video explaining gee-had.


What islamic entity (with waqf in its title), is associated with the Temple Mount?

Apparently, you don't know anything about Palestine.

When Britain took over Palestine, the Palestinians did not want a religious distinction. They wanted to be a united nationality.



It was Britain and the Zionists who wanted to divide people by religion. In 1937 Britain proposed to partition Palestine by religion. In 1947 the UN proposed partition. The Palestinians rejected both plans wanting a single state.

The 1948 Palestinian Declaration of Independence declared a single state without religious distinction.

In 1964 the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) proposed a single state that would include Muslims, Christians, and native Jews.

In 1970 the PLO proposed a single state that would include Muslims, Christians, and all Jews.

The 2003 Palestine Constitution (that does not mention Israel, the occupation, or two states) says that all Palestinians are equal under the law without regard to race, religion, sex, etc..

Hamas is a relatively small group of people who hooked its wagon to the conflict to promote an Islamic state. However, few Palestinians subscribe to that ideology.

BTW, Hamas is shunned by many Islamic groups for being too moderate and democratic.

You're kidding right,
it were the Zionists who slashed the territory in two, leaving the East Bank just for one ethno-religious group?

Israelis never demanded to expel all non-Jews as a precondition for their self-determination,
it were the Arab Muslims who declared this war openly, it's what they officially demand today.

And let's not forget, the main source of both PA and Hamas law is Sharia.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course, this view you hold is merely the political interpretation that best fits your theory the line of events as you interpret what happened.

When Britain took over Palestine, the Palestinians did not want a religious distinction. They wanted to be a united nationality.
.

(COMMENT)

What the Grand Mufti actually called for was a national government; ideally under the control of the Mufti. A "united nationality" is not quite the same thing as calling for a "national government." The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who became the Chair and Voice of the Arab Higher Committee, had grander ideas for the future.

In the 20th Century, no religion had a greater or bloodier internal conflict than followers of Islam (Sunn 'vs' Shi'ite -- with greater than 95% of Palestinian Muslims being Sunni); the most notable of the religious distinctions of the era. The Middle East of the 20th Century is covered in the blood spilled by Muslims of one brand or another drawing a religious distinction. And the propensity for the Muslims to draw such distinctions were bound to have emerged on a clash between the Muslims (Sunni's) and Jewish followers. And that same struggle has spilled over into the 21st Century.

It was Britain and the Zionists who wanted to divide people by religion. In 1937 Britain proposed to partition Palestine by religion. In 1947 the UN proposed partition. The Palestinians rejected both plans wanting a single state.

(COMMENT)

What started as a noisy protest in Jerusalem, orchestrated and under the guidance of the Mufti of Jerusalem, al-Hajj Amin al-Husseini [former artillery officer in the Ottoman Army (WWI), and NAZI collaborator recruiting Muslims for the Waffen-SS (WWII)] turned into the catalyst of a major anti-Jewish set of riots (1920). While the Grand Mufti was pardoned by the British over a 10-year sentence for Inciting Violence, al-Husseini returned only to again protest against the British High Commissioner's Administration of the Territory (to which the Mandate applied).

It was becoming progressively clearer that the most influential of the Arab Community was set upon a policy to systematically oppress and dominate the Jewish immigrants with the intention of maintaining complete political territorial control. The Jewish Factions gradually came to understand that to remain non-violent and to show restraint in retaliation (the Doctrine of the Haganah) was totally ineffective.

The specific declaration of hostilities towards, and the deadly confrontations over, the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH), lead to a policy of separating the belligerent parties. This common sense approach, still used today in a multitude of areas including domestic confrontations and prizefighting, is the separation of the Israelis from the Palestinians.

You choose to call it the "Partition of Palestine by Religion." Others see it as merely the separation of belligerents.

The 1948 Palestinian Declaration of Independence declared a single state without religious distinction.

(COMMENT)

The September 1948 All-Palestinian Government (APG) is simply an attempt by the Egyptian to establish a colonial foothold by means of a proxy government called the APG using former Ottoman and NAZI collaborators as "Puppet Palestinians" as operational cover for the colonialization. It was known in 1948 for what it truly was then; just as it is understood today as a past hoax gone bad. It is not even worth discussing on the many ways t is flawed.

In 1964 the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) proposed a single state that would include Muslims, Christians, and native Jews.

(COMMENT)

In 1964, PLO Chairman Aḥmad Shuqayrī wanted to organize an armed struggle to defeat the Israelis so that he could assume power. It was about "POWER, WEALTH, and INFLUENCE." Chairman Aḥmad Shuqayrī was just mouthing the words that the people wanted to hear, but it was really just a political means to achieve his ends.

In 1970 the PLO proposed a single state that would include Muslims, Christians, and all Jews.

(COMMENT)

OH yeah! 1970 was a banner year for the PLO Fatah. Just ask the Jordanians about "Black September."

The 2003 Palestine Constitution (that does not mention Israel, the occupation, or two states) says that all Palestinians are equal under the law without regard to race, religion, sex, etc..

(COMMENT)

The 2003 Palestinian Constitution does not mean anything if the Arab Palestinians can't even follow it themselves. Any constitution that supports a government in league with terrorists (Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters) is meaningless in terms of the Rule of Law. It has been over a decade since the Basic Law went into effect. The Arab Palestinians have not had a transition in government in accordance with the constitution since it was written.

In fact, ask any Arab Palestinian what sovereignty they have established. Where is the Constitution the law of the land?

Mahmoud Abbas has been President of the Palestinian National Authority and the (so-called) State of Palestine fr some time. In fact, some thing that come thise January (four months) he wil have been in office for a decade past the elected term.

Hamas is a relatively small group of people who hooked its wagon to the conflict to promote an Islamic state. However, few Palestinians subscribe to that ideology.

(COMMENT)

How is it that HAMAS has so much Power and Influence if only a few Palestinians subscribe to that ideology?

BTW, Hamas is shunned by many Islamic groups for being too moderate and democratic.

(COMMENT)

I'm concerned with what the Arab Palestinians support as government. What the rest of the Arab League thinks is a topic of another concern.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

It was known in 1948 for what it truly was then; just as it is understood today as a past hoax gone bad. It is not even worth discussing on the many ways t is flawed.

Oh really? What was wrong with it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The 2003 Palestinian Constitution does not mean anything if the Arab Palestinians can't even follow it themselves.

Indeed, it is violated constantly by the US armed, paid, and trained security forces that collaborate with Israel.

 

[rylah]

It was known in 1948 for what it truly was then; just as it is understood today as a past hoax gone bad. It is not even worth discussing on the many ways t is flawed.

Oh really? What was wrong with it?

Copyright infringement.

 

[rylah]

The 2003 Palestinian Constitution does not mean anything if the Arab Palestinians can't even follow it themselves.

Indeed, it is violated constantly by the US armed, paid, and trained security forces that collaborate with Israel.

The 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine.

The United States of America ratified a treaty with the British Government known as the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, which included by reference the aforementioned Balfour Declaration and includes, verbatim, the full text of the Mandate for Palestine.

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd of November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."

The United States of America is legally bound to the principles contained in the "Balfour Declaration" and the "Mandate for Palestine."

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Arab Palestinians have not had a transition in government in accordance with the constitution since it was written.

There is a constitutional procedure for electing a president. Abbas' term in office expired in January of 2009.

The speaker of parliament is to temporarily assume the office of president and call for elections within 30 days.

The last legal speaker of the parliament is Dr. Aziz Dwaik. He is a member of Hamas so I don't see any compliance with the constitution for the next president.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The 2003 Palestinian Constitution does not mean anything if the Arab Palestinians can't even follow it themselves.

Indeed, it is violated constantly by the US armed, paid, and trained security forces that collaborate with Israel.

The 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine.

The United States of America ratified a treaty with the British Government known as the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, which included by reference the aforementioned Balfour Declaration and includes, verbatim, the full text of the Mandate for Palestine.

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd of November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."

The United States of America is legally bound to the principles contained in the "Balfour Declaration" and the "Mandate for Palestine."

Deflection.

 

[rylah]

The 2003 Palestinian Constitution does not mean anything if the Arab Palestinians can't even follow it themselves.

Indeed, it is violated constantly by the US armed, paid, and trained security forces that collaborate with Israel.

The 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine.

The United States of America ratified a treaty with the British Government known as the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, which included by reference the aforementioned Balfour Declaration and includes, verbatim, the full text of the Mandate for Palestine.

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd of November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."

The United States of America is legally bound to the principles contained in the "Balfour Declaration" and the "Mandate for Palestine."

Deflection.

In the 1924 Anglo American Convention the U.S. agreed to support Great Britain as a Mandatory so long as the Mandatory abided by the San Remo Resolution. The sole purpose of the Resolution regarding Palestine was:

1. Drawing the borders of Palestine
   
2. Reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish People worldwide
   
3. Recognizing the Jewish People's historical connection to the land

There was not even one word in the Mandate or the Anglo American convention about creating an Arab land in Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The 2003 Palestinian Constitution does not mean anything if the Arab Palestinians can't even follow it themselves.

Indeed, it is violated constantly by the US armed, paid, and trained security forces that collaborate with Israel.

The 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine.

The United States of America ratified a treaty with the British Government known as the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, which included by reference the aforementioned Balfour Declaration and includes, verbatim, the full text of the Mandate for Palestine.

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd of November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."

The United States of America is legally bound to the principles contained in the "Balfour Declaration" and the "Mandate for Palestine."

Deflection.

In the 1924 Anglo American Convention the U.S. agreed to support Great Britain as a Mandatory so long as the Mandatory abided by the San Remo Resolution. The sole purpose of the Resolution regarding Palestine was:

1. Drawing the borders of Palestine
   
2. Reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish People worldwide
   
3. Recognizing the Jewish People's historical connection to the land

There was not even one word in the Mandate or the Anglo American convention about creating an Arab land in Palestine.

So then, why did Britain give Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who lived in Palestine?

 

[rylah]

The 2003 Palestinian Constitution does not mean anything if the Arab Palestinians can't even follow it themselves.

Indeed, it is violated constantly by the US armed, paid, and trained security forces that collaborate with Israel.

The 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine.

The United States of America ratified a treaty with the British Government known as the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, which included by reference the aforementioned Balfour Declaration and includes, verbatim, the full text of the Mandate for Palestine.

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd of November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."

The United States of America is legally bound to the principles contained in the "Balfour Declaration" and the "Mandate for Palestine."

Deflection.

In the 1924 Anglo American Convention the U.S. agreed to support Great Britain as a Mandatory so long as the Mandatory abided by the San Remo Resolution. The sole purpose of the Resolution regarding Palestine was:

1. Drawing the borders of Palestine
   
2. Reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish People worldwide
   
3. Recognizing the Jewish People's historical connection to the land

There was not even one word in the Mandate or the Anglo American convention about creating an Arab land in Palestine.

So then, why did Britain give Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who lived in Palestine?

I don't see any problem as long as they abide by all their obligations.
That Palestine was to become Jewish National Homeland was engraved in international law, which Britain attempted to thwart by banning Jews from their country, while giving most of its' territory to a separate Arab state.

The British Mandatory was not a sovereign. All its rights and obligations relating to Palestine, emanated from the Mandate of Palestine. The Mandatory was a trustee for the League of Nations, and it was not given the power to take any steps which violated the terms of the Mandate. It could not change the terms of the Mandate at its pleasure, as it did in the following two cases:

1. Ceding 77.5 % of Palestine to Trans Jordan (in 1922)
   
2. Ceding the Golan to Syria (in 1923)

The Mandatory violated article 5 & article 27 of the Mandate when it ceded 77.5% of Palestine to TransJordan and the Golan to Syria:

ART. 5. "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."
ART. 27: The Mandatory had no right to amend the Mandate terms without the full consent of the League of Nations or its Mandates Commission.

 

[Shusha]

So then, why did Britain give Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who lived in Palestine?

"Britian" did no such thing. The convention of the time was, and is, that citizenship in a new sovereign passes automatically from the old sovereign. Thus did the citizenship pass from the Ottoman Empire to the new sovereign, Israel.

The question you should be asking is why some Arabs lost citizenship in the new sovereign State.

 

[Hollie]

The Arab Palestinians have not had a transition in government in accordance with the constitution since it was written.

There is a constitutional procedure for electing a president. Abbas' term in office expired in January of 2009.

The speaker of parliament is to temporarily assume the office of president and call for elections within 30 days.

The last legal speaker of the parliament is Dr. Aziz Dwaik. He is a member of Hamas so I don't see any compliance with the constitution for the next president.

It’s odd that you would rattle on with such things as constitutional process relative to Islamic dictators. The lineage of the Hamas with reference to the Muslim Brotherhood and that masterpiece of Islamic fascism otherwise known as the Hamas Charter should have given you a clue as to islamic terrorists and their willingness to abide by kuffar principles of representative elections and rule of law.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, it is violated constantly by the US armed, paid, and trained security forces that collaborate with Israel.

The 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine.

The United States of America ratified a treaty with the British Government known as the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, which included by reference the aforementioned Balfour Declaration and includes, verbatim, the full text of the Mandate for Palestine.

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd of November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."

The United States of America is legally bound to the principles contained in the "Balfour Declaration" and the "Mandate for Palestine."

Deflection.

In the 1924 Anglo American Convention the U.S. agreed to support Great Britain as a Mandatory so long as the Mandatory abided by the San Remo Resolution. The sole purpose of the Resolution regarding Palestine was:

1. Drawing the borders of Palestine
   
2. Reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish People worldwide
   
3. Recognizing the Jewish People's historical connection to the land

There was not even one word in the Mandate or the Anglo American convention about creating an Arab land in Palestine.

So then, why did Britain give Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who lived in Palestine?

I don't see any problem as long as they abide by all their obligations.
That Palestine was to become Jewish National Homeland was engraved in international law, which Britain attempted to thwart by banning Jews from their country, while giving most of its' territory to a separate Arab state.

The British Mandatory was not a sovereign. All its rights and obligations relating to Palestine, emanated from the Mandate of Palestine. The Mandatory was a trustee for the League of Nations, and it was not given the power to take any steps which violated the terms of the Mandate. It could not change the terms of the Mandate at its pleasure, as it did in the following two cases:

1. Ceding 77.5 % of Palestine to Trans Jordan (in 1922)
   
2. Ceding the Golan to Syria (in 1923)

The Mandatory violated article 5 & article 27 of the Mandate when it ceded 77.5% of Palestine to TransJordan and the Golan to Syria:

ART. 5. "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."
ART. 27: The Mandatory had no right to amend the Mandate terms without the full consent of the League of Nations or its Mandates Commission.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

 

[P F Tinmore]

So then, why did Britain give Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who lived in Palestine?

"Britian" did no such thing. The convention of the time was, and is, that citizenship in a new sovereign passes automatically from the old sovereign. Thus did the citizenship pass from the Ottoman Empire to the new sovereign, Israel.

The question you should be asking is why some Arabs lost citizenship in the new sovereign State.

Citizenship was passed to Palestine. There was no Israel.

 

[Shusha]

So then, why did Britain give Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who lived in Palestine?

"Britian" did no such thing. The convention of the time was, and is, that citizenship in a new sovereign passes automatically from the old sovereign. Thus did the citizenship pass from the Ottoman Empire to the new sovereign, Israel.

The question you should be asking is why some Arabs lost citizenship in the new sovereign State.

So then, why did Britain give Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who lived in Palestine?

"Britian" did no such thing. The convention of the time was, and is, that citizenship in a new sovereign passes automatically from the old sovereign. Thus did the citizenship pass from the Ottoman Empire to the new sovereign, Israel.

The question you should be asking is why some Arabs lost citizenship in the new sovereign State.

So then, why did Britain give Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who lived in Palestine?

"Britian" did no such thing. The convention of the time was, and is, that citizenship in a new sovereign passes automatically from the old sovereign. Thus did the citizenship pass from the Ottoman Empire to the new sovereign, Israel.

The question you should be asking is why some Arabs lost citizenship in the new sovereign State.

Citizenship was passed to Palestine. There was no Israel.

Citizenship can't be passed to empty air. It was passed to the new sovereign. Which was Israel. Israel has been the ONLY sovereign in that territory.

 

[Hollie]

So then, why did Britain give Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who lived in Palestine?

"Britian" did no such thing. The convention of the time was, and is, that citizenship in a new sovereign passes automatically from the old sovereign. Thus did the citizenship pass from the Ottoman Empire to the new sovereign, Israel.

The question you should be asking is why some Arabs lost citizenship in the new sovereign State.

Citizenship was passed to Palestine. There was no Israel.

Only if you ignore the historical record.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Citizenship was passed to Palestine. There was no Israel.

(COMMENT)

Who issued citizenship. "Palestine" in that point in the timeline, meant the territory to which the Mandate applied, and was in effect Britian acting as the Government of Palestine.

The Arab Paestinians had NO Standing relative to either the Covenant or the Treaties after WWI. They were not a party to any of the agreements and cannot enforce any part of the agreements.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

The 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine.

The United States of America ratified a treaty with the British Government known as the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, which included by reference the aforementioned Balfour Declaration and includes, verbatim, the full text of the Mandate for Palestine.

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd of November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."

The United States of America is legally bound to the principles contained in the "Balfour Declaration" and the "Mandate for Palestine."

Deflection.

In the 1924 Anglo American Convention the U.S. agreed to support Great Britain as a Mandatory so long as the Mandatory abided by the San Remo Resolution. The sole purpose of the Resolution regarding Palestine was:

1. Drawing the borders of Palestine
   
2. Reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish People worldwide
   
3. Recognizing the Jewish People's historical connection to the land

There was not even one word in the Mandate or the Anglo American convention about creating an Arab land in Palestine.

So then, why did Britain give Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who lived in Palestine?

I don't see any problem as long as they abide by all their obligations.
That Palestine was to become Jewish National Homeland was engraved in international law, which Britain attempted to thwart by banning Jews from their country, while giving most of its' territory to a separate Arab state.

The British Mandatory was not a sovereign. All its rights and obligations relating to Palestine, emanated from the Mandate of Palestine. The Mandatory was a trustee for the League of Nations, and it was not given the power to take any steps which violated the terms of the Mandate. It could not change the terms of the Mandate at its pleasure, as it did in the following two cases:

1. Ceding 77.5 % of Palestine to Trans Jordan (in 1922)
   
2. Ceding the Golan to Syria (in 1923)

The Mandatory violated article 5 & article 27 of the Mandate when it ceded 77.5% of Palestine to TransJordan and the Golan to Syria:

ART. 5. "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."
ART. 27: The Mandatory had no right to amend the Mandate terms without the full consent of the League of Nations or its Mandates Commission.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Yes, both the San Remo and the Palestine Mandate are documents based on that covenant.
Neither mention anything about political rights of Arabs living there.

According to international law, the Jewish people are the sole beneficiary of Self-Determination in the land that was Mandatory Palestine. The rights of the Jewish People to Palestine are enshrined in three legally binding international treaties. These rights have not expired and are still in full force and effect.

In fact it's even enshrined in US law:
Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine — Eretz-Israel — and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

 

[P F Tinmore]

Deflection.

In the 1924 Anglo American Convention the U.S. agreed to support Great Britain as a Mandatory so long as the Mandatory abided by the San Remo Resolution. The sole purpose of the Resolution regarding Palestine was:

1. Drawing the borders of Palestine
   
2. Reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish People worldwide
   
3. Recognizing the Jewish People's historical connection to the land

There was not even one word in the Mandate or the Anglo American convention about creating an Arab land in Palestine.

So then, why did Britain give Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who lived in Palestine?

I don't see any problem as long as they abide by all their obligations.
That Palestine was to become Jewish National Homeland was engraved in international law, which Britain attempted to thwart by banning Jews from their country, while giving most of its' territory to a separate Arab state.

The British Mandatory was not a sovereign. All its rights and obligations relating to Palestine, emanated from the Mandate of Palestine. The Mandatory was a trustee for the League of Nations, and it was not given the power to take any steps which violated the terms of the Mandate. It could not change the terms of the Mandate at its pleasure, as it did in the following two cases:

1. Ceding 77.5 % of Palestine to Trans Jordan (in 1922)
   
2. Ceding the Golan to Syria (in 1923)

The Mandatory violated article 5 & article 27 of the Mandate when it ceded 77.5% of Palestine to TransJordan and the Golan to Syria:

ART. 5. "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."
ART. 27: The Mandatory had no right to amend the Mandate terms without the full consent of the League of Nations or its Mandates Commission.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Yes, both the San Remo and the Palestine Mandate are documents based on that covenant.
Neither mention anything about political rights of Arabs living there.

According to international law, the Jewish people are the sole beneficiary of Self-Determination in the land that was Mandatory Palestine. The rights of the Jewish People to Palestine are enshrined in three legally binding international treaties. These rights have not expired and are still in full force and effect.

In fact it's even enshrined in US law:
Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine — Eretz-Israel — and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

It is not as simple as all that.

The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.

The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.

Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.