"The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine never included the area that is now Jordan."
Oh yes it did - in 1921 the British cut off 78% of Palestine so as to give the Hashemites a Kingdom. This was to solve a little problem they had with Saudi Arabia (where the oil was/is) as there were 2 claimants to the throne.
They arbitrarily created Trans-Jordan which was considered an illegal act by the League of Nations. But then of course nothing could be done about it because Britain was the superpower of the region.
Any map of the area prior to 1921 will show Trans-Jordan as part of Palestine.
No, you're wromg. The League of Nations Mandate came into effect after Jordan became a separate entity. Even Israel partisan Daniel Pipes admits your Zionist myth is untrue in one of his articles, Is Jordan Palestine - Middle East analysis article by Daniel PipesIt's high time all the Israeli propagandists gave up their losing battle on this bit of misinformation.
Its you who is propagandising and misinforming as can be seen by your bold statement at the top of this post.
Now I will show you conclusively why that first statement of your's is wrong.
Historically from the time of the Romans through to the Ottomans the province of Palestine always included both sides of the Jordan River. During the Ottoman period there were 5 administrative districts (sanjuks) 2 of which were in what is now called Jordan.
When the British took over from Turkey during WW1 they considered the whole of the area of trans-Jordan as part of Palestine.
From AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE." July 1921 to the League of Nations.
"Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania. It is bounded on the north by the frontier of Syria, placed under the mandate of France; on the south by the kingdom of the Hejaz; and on the west by the line of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while on the east it stretches into the desert and ends--the boundary is not yet defined--where Mesopotamia begins....."
The League did not create the mandate. Britain became the Mandatory Power over Palestine pursuant to the Sykes-Picot agreement of May 1916. This was ratified by further agreements betweeen the allies at war's end when the Levant was split between Britain and France and Britain became the Mandatory as right of conqueror. (Maybe Israel should have assumed a similar role after 1967).
The LON's duties "were confined to seeing that the specific and detailed terms of the mandates were in accordance with the decisions taken by the Allied and Associated Powers,..." (see below) and so your statement above about when the LON Mandate came into effect is not only irrelevant but wrong in fact as it wasn't the LON's Mandate in the first instance.
Excerpts from League of Nations Official Journal dated June 1922]pp.546-549
"....The public mind, he thought, might have misunderstood the powers of the League of Nations and of its Council regarding mandates. Mandates were not the creation of the League, and they could not in substance be altered by the League. The League's duties were confined to seeing that the specific and detailed terms of the mandates were in accordance with the decisions taken by the Allied and Associated Powers, and that in carrying out these mandates the Mandatory Powers should be under the supervision--not under the control--of the League. The League possessed the necessary organisation for obtaining the fullest information as to the method in which each Mandatory Power was carrying out its duties.
A mandate was a self-imposed limitation by the conquerors on the sovereignty which they exercised over the conquered territory. In the general interests of mankind, the Allied and Associated Powers had imposed this limitation upon themselves, and had asked the League to assist them in seeing that this general policy was carried out, but the League was not the author of it; the duty of the League, which was a most responsible and difficult one, was first to see that the terms of the mandates were in conformity with the principles of the Covenant and, secondly, that these terms would, in fact, regulate the policy of the Mandatory Powers in the mandated territories.....".
What Daniel Pipes has written and your interpretation thereof is irrelevant in this instance because this is about historical facts not an opnion piece.
I trust that now you will be better informed.