Depends on the who and where. The Jews had any number of ways of separating Palestinians from their land, and the British backed it up with force. These were tricks of the court and law, and the English enforced the rule of law strongly even when there was some fuckery involved.
On the other hand, the Jews were also restricted by English law and couldn't force the Arabs out of the Mandate to make room for further Jewish immigration. This resulted in a terrorism campaign post-WWII that, along with pressure from the United States and United Nations, resulted in the British withdrawing from the Mandate and the UN proposing a two-state solution. This all went to shit when the Jews and Arabs immediately went to war, the Arabs generally accepted as being the instigators, the result of which left much of the Mandate entirely in Jewish control and drove over a half million Arabs off of their land.
The Israelis are living pretty decent and are "more free" to do as they wish without British rule, however the continued state of conflict with its surrounding Arab neighbors does take a bit of a chunk out of standard of living. That's not so different from how it's always been, however, so I'd say the Jewish Isarelis are better off.
The Palestinians are worse off. Their lands are economically deprived due to the international political situation and continued violence and they suffer from all manner of social and economic ill as a result. They were better off under British rule in which they benefited from the economic and technological progress that came with it and the greater degree of social freedom that came with a half-decently equitable legal system. Arabs living in Israel, while they get to enjoy the economic benefits of such at least in part, are subject to a great degree of legal scrutiny and public discrimination.