The final status of the British Mandate on Palestine was approved in 1922, and included section 25 that separated Trans-Jordan from the Mandate, therefore modifying the borders set in San Remo (1920). This decision was approved by the League of Nations, and even though it contradicted the Balfour Declaration, it was a legal action. In 1936, the League of Nations adopted the Montevideo Convention (1933), according to which “recognition of a state is unconditional and irrevocable” (Article 6). When the British approved the White Paper (1939) they violated the laws of the League of Nations and the Montevideo Convention. The League disregarded the legality of this White Paper. In 1945, the UN approved Article 80 (Chapter 12); Recognizing the rights granted to the different peoples recognized and, as a result, all decisions of the period 1920-1946 were in force. Under these terms, the borders from the Jordan River to the sea and the national rights of the Jews to the Land of Israel were recognized by the UN. If the Arabs would have accepted the partition proposal (Declaration 181), reaching an agreement with the Jews, there could have been a new international rule of law. In other words, if the Arabs would have accepted Declaration 181 (1947) it could have been legally binding. We must remember jurist Prof Steven Schwebel, ex-legal advisor of the State Department and president of the International Court of Justice of The Hague, stated: “The General Assembly of the United Nations can only, in principle, produce proposals with no legal effect, based on Article 10 of the Charter of the United Nations”. The legal status of Israel is not based on Declaration 181, which was only that, a “declaration”.