Israel didn't 'have' to happen at that point. Israel 'happening' has much more to do with Interwar politics, not WW2 - the vast majority of those present in Israel at the date of its creation were those who engaged in colonization projects during the British Mandate of Palestine, with Jewish survivors of WW2 largely not emigrating until after the state of Israel had been formed.

You can argue that the desire to escape European antisemitism was valid, but Zionism, as a project, was never all that wholesome in practical terms. From the start of the British Mandate after WW1, Zionist settlers were very clear that they envisioned their colonization in terms that European colonizers would have been familiar with - the suppression of the indigenous population under the presumption that they brought 'real' and racially superior civilization - even though the post-WW1 world order had become increasingly hostile to such notions even from Christian Europeans.

Israel at that point had to happen, because nobody really cared about what happens to Jews now, and nobody really cared to bring people like Adolf Eichmann to justice.

So you're either woefully misinformed or defending the Nakba. Which is it?