Of course it was "Jewish homeland", but the end of ww2 the homeland was sufficiently powerful to declare independence (on 14 May 1948). And:
..This definition of the National Home has sometimes been taken to preclude the establishment of a Jewish State. But, though the phraseology was clearly intended to conciliate, as far as might be, Arab antagonism to the National Home, there is nothing in it to prohibit the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State, and Mr. Churchill himself has told us in evidence that no such prohibition was intended.
UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PALESTINE, REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, New York 1947
After the collapse, the countries were more or less (rather less) created along ethnic lines, but only selected few were allowed to enjoy that, most weren't - this included territories conquered by the British and French Empires.
I don't deny borders were drawn along ethnic lines, I don't deny it was called self-determination.
But it wasn't an international rule, to be one it must be accepted by all and implemented everywhere. And it hasn't been to this day.
As you wrote yourself the employed by the Allies self-determination depended on "results" so it wasn't a law, it was the mercy of the victorious. No law should depend on results.
My point was the legitimacy of Wilson's statement wasn't based on a non-existent international rule but on the fact, the US and the Allies won the war, it was accepted by the Germans victor's justice. btw nothing wrong with that.