> Admittedly without consulting the literature, I would still expect to find that the divisions in State and Defence turned less on humanitarian concerns than on strategic considerations having to do with the Soviets acquiring influence with the Arab states. The pro-Zionist side, which Truman was part of, probably countered that a failure to support partition would increase Soviet influence within the Hebrew-speaking settler colony if the Soviet bloc were the sole source of diplmatic and military support for the nascent Jewish state.
There was no pro-Zionist faction in the State and Defense departments. The division was between the State and Defense Departments on one side and the White House and its political advisers on the other side. The main influence on Truman's decision was a Jewish political aide named David Niles.
If you search "Truman and Israel" on Amazon.com, something like a dozen books on this question will come up. I don't think a single one of them - and certainly no scholarly account - argues anything like what you're saying. If there is any debate about Truman's motives it's between those who stress his own personal sympathy for Zionism and those who emphasize his political calculations for the 1948 election. There is no serious third position about Cold War interests. It's just not a feasible argument given the record.
I know some things are axiomatically true, but some axioms are wrong.
SA