Israel: Question for Natasha Hausdorff on Uti Possidetis Juris

My comment at 7:34 PM for Natasha Hausdorff on the Abuse of International Law with Henrik Beckheim:

You already know I am deeply sympathetic to the UPJ argument, Natasha, but surely you have to acknowledge there is another credible argument before the bench here, and that it is so far the view of the ICJ majority? From Google Gemini: "Most international legal experts don't see uti possidetis juris granting Israel sovereignty over all historic Palestine because the doctrine applies to decolonization to preserve borders, not to empower a minority to claim the whole territory, contradicting Palestinian [Arab] self-determination; the Mandate itself was a complex trust with competing claims, not a simple colony, making the situation sui generis (unique), and the doctrine doesn't override existing humanitarian law or the right of a people to form their own state within those inherited borders." I agree that UNGA resolution 181 wasn't absolutely legally binding, but this is a far cry from saying it was legally irrelevant from an American UNSC P5 member perspective. Surely you are not saying that Truman ever signed off on a single Jewish state from the river to the sea? When the UNSC and UNGA recognized Israel as a member state in 1949, did they do so with the understanding that UPJ gave Israel sovereignty over all of Palestine, or did they rather reject this framework outright? Isn't a sui generis case approach, rather than UPJ, plainly demonstrated by the entire UN Security Council record to date? Argument for the sake of Heaven from a gentile two-state Zionist. Shalom from America.