Are you denying that both Jordan and Israel were formed as a result of the Mandate? Without that, Israel would have rights to both sides of the Jordan River, as per San Remo

1. How San Remo and the Mandate are invoked in modern claims

Supporters of Israeli claims point to the San Remo Resolution and the Mandate as the legal origin of Jewish rights in Palestine and argue those instruments conferred enduring title or prerogatives for a Jewish national home between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean ^{[7] [8] [9]}. Several advocacy and legal‑opinion sources explicitly state that San Remo “recognized the right of the Jewish people to sovereignty over all of Palestine” or that the Mandate created binding international law preserved in later instruments ^{[8] [7] [9]}.

2. The administrative reality: Transjordan was separated from Mandate provisions

Primary historical accounts and academic summaries note that although San Remo framed the Mandate for Palestine, British policy soon associated Transjordan administratively but excluded it from the special provisions intended to foster a Jewish national home — effectively barring Jewish settlement east of the Jordan River ^{[1] [3]}. Britain’s later decisions and the 1922 memorandum meant the Mandate’s Jewish‑homeland provisions applied west of the Jordan; Transjordan followed a different political trajectory that led to independence as the Hashemite Kingdom in 1946 ^{[1] [4] [10]}.

3. Did Israel therefore “have rights to both sides” of the Jordan River?

Some modern commentators and legal advocacy groups assert that San Remo’s language covered both banks and that later British actions were administrative, not a removal of legal title — hence their claim that Israel’s rights extend to both sides ^{[7] [11] [12]}. But historical records cited in standard reference works show the British excluded Transjordan from the Mandate’s Jewish‑settlement provisions and that Transjordan evolved into an independent state well before Israel’s 1948 founding ^{[1] [4] [10]}. Available sources therefore present competing interpretations: advocacy sources claim enduring legal title inherited from San Remo ^{[8] [9]}, while historical/legal summaries emphasize the 1921–1922 British decisions that limited the Balfour/Mandate commitments to territory west of the Jordan ^{[1] [3]}.

4. Political and diplomatic outcomes that matter more than abstract legal claims

Whatever arguments exist about “rights” derived from San Remo, the practical map is shaped by state practice and treaties: Jordan exercised sovereignty east of the Jordan River, became independent in 1946, administered the West Bank after 1948 until 1967, and only renounced claims to the West Bank in 1988 ^{[4] [13]}. The Israel–Jordan peace treaty of 1994 expressly delimits the international boundary with reference to Mandate boundaries and replaced the 1949 lines with a negotiated treaty boundary — a clear example of diplomacy overtaking contested historical legal claims ^{[5] [6]}.

5. Where sources disagree — and why that matters

Sources with political or advocacy aims (pro‑Israel legal sites, nationalist commentators) tend to emphasize San Remo as an unrevoked legal foundation for Israeli territorial claims and argue later British or UN acts cannot erase it ^{[7] [11] [9]}. Scholarly and diplomatic histories stress the British memorandum and administrative partitioning that excluded Transjordan’s application of the Jewish‑home clauses, producing a separate Hashemite polity and later independent Jordan ^{[1] [4] [10]}. Both perspectives cite overlapping documents but read the effect differently: one treats San Remo as enduring title; the other treats subsequent administrative practice and treaties as determinative of modern borders.

6. What reporting and documents actually state — and the limits of this record

Primary treaty texts and historical summaries show Britain deliberately limited Jewish‑homeland provisions to west of the Jordan and that Transjordan’s separate status was recognized in practice, followed by Jordanian independence in 1946 ^{[1] [4]}. The 1994 peace treaty between Israel and Jordan uses Mandate‑era maps as reference, demonstrating that Mandate boundaries still inform modern diplomacy but do not automatically confer current sovereign entitlement claims without state agreement ^{[5] [6]}. Available sources do not mention any contemporary judicial ruling that conclusively declares San Remo to grant Israel unilateral territorial “rights” east of the Jordan River irrespective of later administrative acts and state practice.

Bottom line: San Remo and the Mandate are central to legal narratives used by both sides, but the historical record in mainstream sources shows Britain and the League of Nations treated Transjordan differently from Mandate Palestine, and later state practice (Jordanian independence, 1948–67 control, and the 1994 treaty) set the political‑legal reality that shapes today’s borders ^{[1] [4] [5]}.