There are plenty of countries out there that have no justification for existing except that they were an administrative unit of a european colonial power. When the europeans left, various local groups took over. Israel is hardly unique in being created in the years after WWII…in fact most countries in the world were created that recently.
My understanding is that the Balfour Declaration made no mention at all of a Jewish State and did not tie Britains hands in that regard. It mentioned a Jewish homeland but specifically mentioned that the concept should not prejudice the rights of the pre-existing Arab (majority) population. It was a lazy and self serving Declaration only excused by the belief that anything that encouraged US political and public opinion to come in on our side in WWI was justified. It was the practical Zionist tactic of taking whatever was on offer and then pushing for more (as opposed to the more purist Arab position since the declaration of the state of Israel of wanting the whole question resolved) that was key to the formation of the modern state.
It is also worth noting that “Israel”/“The Zionist Entity” (trying to avoid offending either side) only secured it’s existance by a Unilateral Declaration of Independence which was immediately challenged by Britain and the surrounding Arab states. Only Britain was no longer prepared to fight to deny the Zionists their wish.
IMHO it was the early US and Russian recognition of Israel that gave practical effect to the existance of the modern state. At the same time it is interesting to note that the US determinedly turned their faces to allowing Jewish refugees entry into the US immediately after the war (only 5000 I believe between 1945 and the UDI of Israel/The Zionist Entity). Neither the UK nor the US come well out of the whole affair, needless to say.
Although I am sure I will bring down a shit storm of US pro-Zionist fury on my head for this, I would recommend a book “The Fateful Triangle” by Naom Chomsky to get a view which will balance out alot of the publications readily available to US readers, although you will have to dig deeper to explore some of the more polemic statements he makes.
If Noam Chomsky were to tell me that eating a ton of plutonium might be dangerous, I would seek independent verification from three independent sources. The man has no concept of reality.
Aro, most of your other questions have been pretty accurately answered. As to the site you refer to in the OP, I can’t speak to the accuracy of the information (many of the claims on there are extremely subject to debate, and in any case I don’t have time for a real intense reading), but a quick look around certainly reveals it to be anything but “objective”. That site is pretty far from even-handed. For instance, talking about the US “pro-Israel” lobby, the Zionist “transfer” process, and the so-called “second-class” Israeli Arabs (while discrimination against Arabs is a significant problem in Israel, it occurs at the social and not institutional level), and in general focusing on Israel’s faults without any mention of the Arab-instigated wars, Palestinian terrorism, etc. basically reveals the site’s bias.
That was a good summation Dogface. I don’t mean to nitpik, but the was no UN in 1917. I think you may mean the LoN.
then…
Anyone else find this amusing?
Yes - I know it’s his name. Still… 
Sorry to nitpick your nitpick, but there was no League of Nations in 1917 either - it was founded in 1919. Before then there were ad-hoc coalitions of willing nations (now where have I heard that recently…?).