Young Lochinvar brings up the counter to my favorite point of bad history, which is that Zionism was well underway by the time of the Balfour Declaration. It should also be noted that the Balfour Declaration did essentially nothing anyway, as it was quickly followed by the Churchill White Paper (of 1922), which completely back-pedaled on the idea of a Jewish state (though it did guarantee the right of Jews already present in Palestine to remain). The British also established strict immigration quotas on Jews.
This is by contrast to the Ottomans, who spent the years from 1878 to 1917 doing all of nothing in Palestine - though that action in 1917 was to expel the Zionists from Tel Aviv, presumably due to the volunteering of many Zionists with the British in the Jewish Legion. It is thus possible that the Ottomans would continue to more-or-less ignore the Zionists, after that action, or that they would go further and try to end the Zionist endeavor (or anything in between). At a guess, the nations of the world will sit by idly as long as the Ottomans don't start openly mass-murdering (though even then, considering the Armenians...)
It's a real question, though, whether the Ottomans will continue governing the region. First off, I can imagine any number of scenarios in which Germany and A-H "win" in Europe but the Ottomans still "lose". OTL, the British and their Arab allies (and the Jewish Legion!) beat the Ottomans pretty squarely, especially with their thrusts from Egypt into Palestine. It's seems feasible-ish to me for the British to still control most of what would become Mandatory Palestine, even if the Entente loses in Europe (though obviously the lands might be returned in a peace treaty). Even if the British don't win, the genie of Arab nationalism will have been let out of the bottle. Even in the event of an Ottoman victory, Arab nationalist uprisings could well see much of Syria (including modern Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and West Bank and Gaza) become independent of Istanbul; likely under the leadership of Faisal al-Hashemi (otl King Faisal I of Iraq). Though OTL, Versailles would make him somewhat bitter and angry towards Zionism, he was fairly pro- in the period before, seeing Zionists as a way to bring capital and knowledge into the region to help with modernizations (somewhat like BlondieBC suggests, though I doubt that anything like an intentional system of Jewish enclaves would ever have been considered). OTL sees the
Faisal-Weizmann Agreement in 1919. So King Faisal I of Syria might be magnanimous and grant the Zionists great leeway in Palestine (OTL he didn't much care about the natives; it's possible that this might change in the event of his rising through popular uprising, but it's somewhat unlikely in my opinion, since the region was somewhat of a backwater). On the other hand, he might not be, especially if he ends up governing only a small region.
Vis. Germany and Austria-Hungary...Kaiser Wilhelm met with Theodore Herzl in Palestine on his trip there, and was sort of vaguely supportive, and I don't know anything about the A-H position, aside from the fact that by 1918 they had lost large amounts of Jews (to emigration, mostly to the US) and were fairly okay with that. I'd expect the two nations to be faintly pro-Zionism, but not enough to pressure Istanbul if that's what it came down to.