Your question about who gave them the right to do these things really has no bearing.

It does on the question of why the Palestinian Arabs have felt put upon by the existence of the State of Israel (and the Jewish National Homeland before it) at all. Yes, the world has moved on, you are right. The Nation of Israel is a fait accompli and there is no turning the clock back to 1917 or 1921 or 1947. (Or 1966 or, or, or....) However no solution will be found to the problems of this region if the attitude brought to the table is "just get over it." People don't work that way. It might be nice if they did; but then they wouldn't be people they'd be something else.

(Consider the truth-and-justice hearings in post-Apartheid South Africa. People need to be heard, and need to feel that their concerns are acknowledged.)

Re. the 5-paragraph summary. Yes, I read it. I am not sure you did, however. It does NOT say that the original mandate was divided into Jews on the left, Arabs on the right. I quote:

The mandate, gave the British virtually a free hand in administering the territory. By September, the establishment of "a Jewish national home" in Palestine was explicitly excluded from Transjordan, and it was made clear that the area would also be closed to Jewish immigration.

This does NOT say that everything east of the Jordan was to be the Jewish National Homeland. Only that no part of Transjordan was to be included in the JNH (if I can abbreviate). After 23 September 1922, "Palestine" referred to those lands west of the Jordan, and "Transjordan" those lands east of the Jordan, and they were treated as two separate mandates, albeit under the same High Commissioner (Source). There were still Palestinians west of the Jordan at that time and it is disingenuous to suggest that the British at that time intended all of Palestine (new i.e. post 23.09.1922 definition) to be the JNH.

We can talk about the unfolding of the JNH in Palestine and the Arab resistance to Jewish/Zionist immigration if you like. It's a complicated history (as you know) and it certainly isn't given much attention by most of the bloviators on the crisis. But those who don't learn from history, etc.

But really nobody has addressed my main point: the State of Israel has shown by its actions, as recently as this week, that it's not interested in peace with the Palestinians as equals, if at all. Every time they bite another chunk off the West Bank and fill it with Jewish settlers, they drive home that point. Is there a ne plus ultra point? Will they stop stealing the Palestinian West Bank when they have "settled" 50%? 75%? 90%? When will they stop?

I don't see how any independent observer can draw any other conclusion than that it is the intention of Israel to ultimately "settle" all of the West Bank, bit by bit. At least the ultra-Orthodox are honest enough to say it outright: they quite plainly say that all of "Judea and Samaria" belongs to Israel. When they (the State of Israel) finish what they started in 1948 with "Operation Clean Sweep", and all the Palestinians (with the possible exception of Gaza; at this point who can say?) are driven out of what they consider "Eretz Yisroel" (sp?), then maybe they will truly be interested in peace. If it isn't too late.

ALL THAT SAID: Lest anyone (by which I mean anyone, not necessarily the people I'm responding to in this post) should want to tell lies about where I stand: I deplore the killing of innocent people. The rockets into Israel, and the suicide bombers, and any other form of attacks on Israeli civilians, have got to stop. Period.