I believe I already pointed out that Israel has claimed that 181 formed the basis of its legitimate statehood. But that was also post facto and, as I’ve pointed out, 181 didn’t do anything, wasn’t enforced, didn’t inform the final geography, etc… Nor is there any evidence that, if the British dropped their control of the mandate and there was no UN vote, that once a nation of Israel was set up with fully functioning administrative services that could fulfill the role of a sovereign, that nations that were willing to recognize it in '47 would not have done so in '48 sans 181. Nor, I should point out, would the war of '48 have been different without 181 or that Israel wouldn’t have declared independence without 181. If there had been no 181, Israel would have just claimed something else as the basis for its existence.
We should also remember that 181 was, again, non-binding, and non-binding suggestions do not have the force of law. And, as well, it served to set up a contract between the two parties and one side rejected it, meaning there was no contract. And so on.
That is the objection. People often like to claim that the international community “created” Israel. But it didn’t. The sovereign power of the region pulled out, the Arabs invaded, and the war created Israel. That’s the simple fact. Those who claim otherwise are obligated to show what 181 actually did… but since it did nothing there’s not much to show. People can claim it gave legitimacy to Israel’s foundation, but that’s also a dodge, as it ignores the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations’ mandate for close Jewish settlement in the first place. Why ignore two (equally meaningless) bits of words while claiming that the third was what really did it?
Further, we’ve seen numerous nations arise without specific UN sanction, yes?
But again, you need to look at Dick’s actual question and its numerous errors.
It’s set up, in the first place, to try to equate “Jewish terrorism” (condemned and not supported by the official Jewish governing body or its armed forced) with PNA sponsored/led/allowed terrorism. He’s trying to claim that the partition was about setting up a Jewish state in spite of terrorism, when in fact it was about setting up a quasi-federated union of a Jewish and Arab state, each interconnected and forming an economic union, while one side did not officially use terrorism and the other’s leadership was allied with the Nazis to commit genocide and whose military alliance of Arab states announced a war of annihilation (predictably, Dick is also only asking the question as to whether or not Israel should have been ‘created’ by 181, not if Palestine should have as well). The question also aims at a gotchaya! by alleging that Israel claimed that all Palestinian violence (note Dick’s use of “Jewish violence” instead of “Irgun violence”) must stop, rather than that the PNA fulfill its treaty obligations and stop allowing, encouraging and/or engaging in terrorism.
His error on what 181 was and what it did is only one part of the problem with his question.