But the Mandate for Palestine only mentioned the Jews, and not the Arabs

1. What the Mandate’s text actually says

The original Mandate’s preamble and operative clauses made two central commitments: to place the territory under conditions that would “secure the establishment of the Jewish national home” and simultaneously to safeguard “the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion” ^[1]. The Avalon Project reproduces the Mandate language verbatim and repeatedly highlights both the obligation toward a Jewish national home and the duty to protect non-Jewish inhabitants’ civil and religious rights ^[1].

2. Why people say “it only mentioned the Jews”

Critics focus on the Mandate’s directive that the Mandatory “shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home,” which is a prominent, programmatic clause and therefore often foregrounded in summaries and political arguments ^[1]. Historical and political accounts note that early drafts and diplomatic negotiations emphasized implementing the 1917 Balfour Declaration—this emphasis helps explain why readers perceive the Mandate as oriented chiefly toward Jewish national aspirations ^{[2] [3]}.

3. Where the Mandate acknowledges Arabs/other communities

The Mandate does not disappear the Arab population: it explicitly requires safeguarding the civil and religious rights of “existing non-Jewish communities” and calls for encouragement of local autonomy and self-governing institutions “so far as circumstances permit” ^{[1] [3]}. World History Commons and other overviews underline that the Mandate was meant to “preserve the rights of other communities and holy places,” language that confirms the document’s dual commitments ^[3].

4. How this translated in practice — sources show tensions

Contemporary and later reporting and scholarly summaries describe repeated tensions: British policy, Zionist lobbying, Arab objections and inter-communal conflict characterized the Mandate period. The UN historical dossiers and reports of commissions cited by the UN recount Arab discontent with Jewish immigration and land sales, and episodes of riots and violence during the Mandate era ^[4]. These historical records show the gap between legal text and on-the-ground outcomes.

5. Legal and political legacy the sources emphasize

The Mandate’s provisions continued to shape boundaries, claims and later legal instruments: summaries of international rulings and later treaties refer back to the Mandate when fixing boundaries or explaining occupation lines ^[5]. Educational and archival sources (the Avalon Project, World History Commons, Wikipedia summaries) treat the Mandate as foundational for both the emergence of Israel and the long-term dispute over Palestinian rights and statehood ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

6. Competing perspectives visible in the documents

Primary-text reproductions and institutional histories present a mixed record: the Mandate contains protective language for non-Jewish inhabitants but sets a positive obligation to establish a Jewish national home, a tension that produced divergent political readings. Sources note that Zionist and British interests shaped policy, while Arab actors objected that their political rights and preferences were insufficiently taken into account ^{[2] [6] [4]}. Some contemporary commentators draw analogies between modern interventions and the Mandate’s colonial framework, pointing to continuing debates over external imposition and local consent ^{[7] [8]}.

7. What the current reporting does not say

Available sources do not mention any clause in the Mandate that explicitly used the modern term “Arabs” as a single political entity being granted or denied national status; rather, the text refers to “all the inhabitants” and to “non-Jewish communities” ^[1]. Available sources do not claim the Mandate entirely ignored the rights or existence of Palestinian Arabs; instead, they show the Mandate’s simultaneous commitments and the political friction that followed ^{[1] [4]}.

8. Bottom line for readers

The Mandate unmistakably privileged implementation of the Balfour Declaration—creating a legal obligation to promote a Jewish national home—while also including explicit protections for non-Jewish inhabitants’ civil and religious rights ^[1]. The dispute is less about an absolute textual omission than about which parts were emphasized in policy and practice; historical reports document that Arab grievances arose from perceived imbalance between promise and practice ^[4].