In Rashid Khalidi's book 'the Iron Cage' he claims the governmental structure for Arabs in the Palestine Mandate was distinctly different from other colonial gov'ts and was specifically designed to dilute Palestinian power. But is this a farcical claim? Weren't all British colonial territories governed in distinct, localized ways different from all other colonial territories, and did the British not always employ methods to prevent locals from taking power? I feel this claim is kind of blowing smoke and clouding the facts of history. true?
The real question that needs to be asked is not necessarily whether all territories were governed distinctly, but rather if there were any distinctions that lent themselves to bias.
If you ask me, personally (and people know I have a pro-Israel bias), the British were taking very exceptional care with Palestine and the mandate. What's clear is that they had this in their mandate to do so, as the Mandate text said:
In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
One of the big things that Khalidi and others who agree with him (like Smith) argue is that the British chose to ignore the League of Nations charter to favor Jews. And they may have a point, as the Peel Commission in 1937 noted:
We regard the protection of the Holy Places as a permanent trust, unique in its character and purpose, and not contemplated by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. We submit for consideration that, in order to avoid misunderstanding, it might frankly be stated that this trust will only terminate if and when the League of Nations and the United States desire it to do so, and that, while it would be the trustee's duty to promote the well-being and development of the local population concerned, it is not intended that in course of time they should stand by themselves as a wholly self-governing community...
But this was not the only case of exceptionalism displayed when it came to Article 22 of the League of Nations, as I'll get to later, when we talk about the Mandate for Palestine.
In the 1939 White Paper, the British noted that they had hoped their policy of promoting a Jewish National Home in Palestine would be met with happiness by the Arabs there. However, they say in the White Paper:
This hope has not been fulfilled. The alternatives before His Majesty's Government are either (i) to seek to expand the Jewish National Home indefinitely by immigration, against the strongly expressed will of the Arab people of the country; or (ii) to permit further expansion of the Jewish National Home by immigration only if the Arabs are prepared to acquiesce in it. The former policy [of attempting to convince the Arabs of the benefits of a Jewish National Home] means rule by force. Apart from other considerations, such a policy seems to His Majesty's Government to be contrary to the whole spirit of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, as well as to their specific obligations to the Arabs in the Palestine Mandate.
In doing so, the British themselves are acknowledging that they believe that the former policy would be and likely that it was also contrary to the spirit of Article 22. But what exactly is Article 22, and why is it so important? Well, the article can be found here, and a quoted portion of what is contended is the following:
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
Particularly the bolded sentence. The Arabs, who were the community majority under the British administration, really didn't get a "principal consideration" according to the League of Nations Covenant by many historians' (obviously including Khalidi's) account. And quite frankly, I agree. Whether or not that actually does violate the League Covenant is another matter. Even so, the British didn't really care. As Balfour put it:
...we are dealing not with the wishes of an existing community but are consciously seeking to re-constitute a new community and definitely building for a numerical majority in the future.
However, that's not to say all the British agreed with him. That's just the point Khalidi and Smith make in their arguments.
Whether this was unique to how the British handled Palestine in terms of the League Covenant or not isn't really my specialty. I don't know as much about the Mandate process in much of the rest of the world, or how the British handled other areas, so I'm not comfortable comparing. But Khalidi does, in my eyes, have a point: the British were very partial, and did try to dilute the Arab power in Palestine. Whether it was distinctly different, at odds with the League Covenant, etc. is harder to say with finality.