Feisal Weitzman Included in an agreement that both parties agreed upon was that the Jewish people should get the land west of the Jordan River and that the old city of Jerusalem would be under Jewish control.

On January 3, 1919 Chaim Weitzman, who was the leader and representative of the Zionist Organization on behalf of the Jewish people, met with Emir Feisal, who represented the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz. Included in an agreement that both
parties agreed upon was that the Jewish people should get the land west of the Jordan River and that the old city of Jerusalem would be under Jewish control.
The Paris Peace Conference began on January 18, 1919 and lasted about six months in which new borders were decided upon for parts of Europe and the Middle East and were given the force of international law. The conference was made up of the victorious Allied powers from World War I. The “Big Four” were made up of the Page United States, Great Britain, France, and Italy. Lord Balfour represented Britain. It was during the summer of 1919 that Arab opposition began to be voiced against the Feisal-Weitzman agreement. As a result that aspect of the conference stalled and was never agreed upon. Nevertheless, Balfour issued the following statement on August 11, 1919:
“The four great powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age long traditions, in present needs in future hopes of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.”3 The Paris Peace Conference ended without a final solution reached concerning the status of Palestine, even though there was much discussion about the matter.
THE SAN REMO CONFERENCE
A meeting to deal specifically with the unfinished business of Palestine,
which was to be seen as an extension of the Paris Peace Conference was commenced on April 19, 1920 in San Remo, Italy (confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres). It was attended by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the prime ministers of Britain (David Lloyd George), France (Alexander Millerand) and Italy (Francesco Nitti) and by Japan's Ambassador K. Matsui. 
The San Remo Resolution adopted on April 25, 1920 incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917 issued by the British government. The San Remo resolution and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which was adopted at the Paris Peace Conference on April 28, 1919, were the basic documents upon which the British Mandate for the stewardship of Palestine was constructed. It was at San Remo that the Balfour Declaration went from being just a statement of British foreign policy to international law.
The British Mandate was fully implemented upon approval by the Council of the League of Nations on September 22, 1922. However, when the parties left San Remo in April 1919 the future state of Israel was to be made up of what now
constitutes the Kingdom of Jordan, as well as all the land West of the Jordan River. After September 22, 1922 what is now the Kingdom of Jordan was taken away from Palestine and became another Arab nation. This was the beginning of the trend still operative today that Israel needs to give up more land in order to be promised peace. The reality is that every time Israel gives up land, she experiences even less peace.

Today over half of Israel's population are Jewish families forced and expelled from Arab countries and their children and grandchildren.

The Audacity of the Arab-Palestinians and the Arab countries in demanding territory from the Jewish people in Palestine after they persecuted and expelled over a million Jewish families and their children who have lived in Arab land for over 2,400 years and after they confiscated all their assets and Real estate property 5-6 times the size of Israel (120,440 sq. km. - 75,000 sq. mi.), valued in the trillions of dollars. There was also Jewish property and land (totaling about 60,000 sq. km.) in Jordan, Gaza and across the Golan Heights under Syria's control.

Now the Arab nations are demanding more land and more compensation.

The Arab countries have forcefully chased the million Jewish families and their children and now they want to chase them away again, from their own historical land.

Israel must respond with extreme force to any violent demonstration, rockets and terror. Israel's population must have peace and tranquility without intimidation by anyone.

The Jewish people have suffered enough in the Diaspora for the past 2,500 years. It is time for the Jewish people to live as free people in their own land without violence and terror.

It is time to consider that the only alternative is a population transfer of the Arab-Palestinians to the territories the Arab countries confiscated from the Jewish people and settle this dispute once and for all. Many Arab leaders had suggested these solutions over the years.

YJ Draiman

Israel Draiman ·  Top Commenter · Elected Official at City of Los Angeles

As Professor Stephen Schwebel, former judge on the Hague's International Court of Justice notes:

The Arab-Palestinian claim to sovereignty over east Jerusalem under the principle of self-determination of peoples cannot supersede the Jewish right to self-determination in Jerusalem. While Arabs constituted an ethnic majority only in the artificial entity of "East Jerusalem" created by Jordan's illegal division of the city, the armistice lines forming this artificial entity were never intended to determine the borders of, or political sovereignty over, the city. Moreover, Jews constituted the majority ethnic group in unified Jerusalem both in the century before Jordan's invasion, and since 1967 (the exception being during Jordan's illegal occupation).

Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, an international legal expert, scholar and director emeritus of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at the University of Cambridge, details the legal justification for Israel's sovereignty in east Jerusalem. According to the scholar, "Jordan's occupation of the Old City–and indeed of the whole of the area west of the Jordan river entirely lacked legal justification" and was simply a "de facto occupation protected by the Armistice Agreement." This occupation ended as a result of "legitimate measures" of self defense by Israel, thereby opening the way for Israel as "a lawful occupant" to fill a sovereignty vacuum left by Britain's withdrawal from the territory in 1948.

furthermore:

A state acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense......Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.

As Schwebel explains, "Jordan's seizure [in 1948] and subsequent annexation of the West Bank and the old city of Jerusalem were unlawful," arising as they did from an aggressive act. Jordan therefore had no valid title to east Jerusalem. When Jordanian forces attacked Jerusalem in 1967, Israeli forces, acting in self defense, repelled Jordanian forces from territory Jordan was illegitimately occupying. Schwebel maintains that in comparison to Jordan, "Israeli title in old (east) Jerusalem is superior." And in comparison to the UN, which never asserted sovereignty over Jerusalem and allowed its recommendation of a corpus separatum to lapse and die, he sees Israel's claim to Jerusalem as similarly superior.