Would you have supported Israel's creation in 1948?

[The Mikado]

It wasn't the worst decision ever made by a long shot, and made sense then.  It's regrettable, though.  I'm opposed to the whole nation-state concept and the fundamental idea of a Jewish (or Palestinian, for that matter) Homeland, but I realize that that wasn't a popular position during decolonization.

[The Mikado]

Just to set the record straight:

1. There was no Palestinian state in 1948 (nor ever) so nothing was taken from anyone.
2. There was a lot of Jews in the area even before WWII, so they didn't get there because the state was created nor because of the Holocaust.

I always find it strange that the left in general is vehemently pro-immigration and considers it horribly racist to, say, argue that a large immigration of Mexicans into the US or of Arabs to Europe constitutes a threat to Western society, but yet, at the same time, thinks that Jews should not have been allowed to migrate into Israel during the 20s and 30s and that, even though this migration was legal and allowed by the authorities it was somehow deeply unethical.

Given what happened in 1937, 1948 and onwards it is pretty clear that another holocaust of Jews was the only realistic alternative to creating the state of Israel.

Who's saying that?  I'm not arguing against Jewish migration into Palestine, I'm saying that forming a state based on kicking people out of it and dispossessing them is wrong.  A unified Palestine with Jews and Arabs that wasn't explicitly based on being a "Jewish state" is, again, what I would've supported.  I cannot support a state based on being the "home" of one nation, it's appalling to my sensibilities as an American.  (I feel the same way about the horrid immigration policies of, say, Japan)

[The Mikado]

Yes of course, particularly in the aftermath of what Hitler wrought. Of course, if the Arabs had accepted it, they would have more land now than they are demanding now, which is kind of ironic.

Given that the "Palestinian" cause was as minor a concern as it was then, they might've gotten screwed in a different way, with a situation where Egypt kept Gaza and (Trans)Jordan kept the West Bank.

[The Mikado]

Yes of course, particularly in the aftermath of what Hitler wrought. Of course, if the Arabs had accepted it, they would have more land now than they are demanding now, which is kind of ironic.

Given that the "Palestinian" cause was as minor a concern as it was then, they might've gotten screwed in a different way, with a situation where Egypt kept Gaza and (Trans)Jordan kept the West Bank.

What do you mean? That is exactly what happened because of the war. The partitioned state would presumably have been independent of Jordan and Egypt.

What I mean is that, like what actually happened, the lack of Palestinian political organization and presence might have led, even in a peaceful situation, to the other Arab nations taking the Palestinians under their wing, so to speak.  The difference would be that Israel didn't seize those territories in the Six Day War 20 years later.

I find it very hard to imagine, what with the lack of serious, organized Palestinian (as opposed to Arab) advocacy in 1948, that the state promised to them would've happened, war or not.