You keep contradicting yourself. You said "The Jews were destined to live in Israel by Allah" but then you said it was not just that the state was created. Who has a right to go against your Allah?! Unless you don't really believe what you said at the beginning.
And you should know that the British never gave anything. The Jewish freedom fighters of Irgun and Lechi had to force them out because the British tried to reneg on their promise. The land was won with blood sweat and tears and much suffering. And of course the Arab nazis tried to destroy the Jews, but they defended and succeeded, and we defeated many Arab armies.
The Qur'an states that the Jews will return back to their holy lands. There was nothing the Muslims could do about that because it was destiny. They will live there until the Day of Resurrection.
That sounds like either a clever way of rewriting what your Allah said and meant, or a tacit admittance that your religion Islam is truly against Jews and their right to live in the Jewish homeland. If it is "destiny," as you call it, do Jews have a right to live there or not? Is it that they don't really have a right, but that Allah put them there and then Muslims will whine and complain about it until the "Day of Resurrection" where Muslims will fight the Jew behind every rock and tree? Hmmmmm....
The fight for the holy land will continue until then.
Why should it? If your allah said Jews will be there until day of Resurrection, then why do you Muslims fight your allah and try to remove the Jews by "fighting for the holy land." ?
Separately, I stated that Israel was created unfairly.
And separately, I stated how wrong you were to claim this.
The British gave that land to the Jews out of sympathy after the holocaust.
No, they didn't. It had nothing to do with the Holocaust. These are the lies that are spread by Muslim propagandists who want to murder the Jews of Israel by connecting their presence there only to the holocaust and not to any sort of human rights. The British promised to give over their control of "Mandate Palestine" (as they named it) with the Balfour Declaration in 1917. This was later incorporated into the Treaty of Sevres with Turkey after World War 1. In 1917 there was no such thing as a holocaust, and there was no "sympathy" for murdered Jews. There were many factors that combined to produce this phenomenon, one of them being the Jewish legions help in conquering the land for the British in WW1, another being Chaim Weizmann's instrumental role in helping the Allied powers win world war 1, particularly the British, through his able production of much needed acetone for explosives to be used in the warfare. Another factor was the rise of a certain strain of Christians in British parliament who believed in the Bible and identified strongly with and supported the Jewish desire (as outwardly promoted in the growing zionist movement of the time) to move back to our ancestral homeland which was stolen from us by Romans, and later Muslims who stole it from the Catholics which Romans turned into.
For brief summary see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917 The "Churchill White paper" of 1922 clarifies the British stance and intention on giving the Jews our homeland, and it states quite emphatically that they are doing so due to historic rights of the Jewish people, and NOT DUE TO SUFFERANCE.
To further prove the point that it had nothing to do with the holocaust, I would point out the MacDonald White Paper of 1939 under the Chamberlain govt which restricted Jewish immigration to the mandate. http://holocaust-forum.blogspot.com/2009/05/macdonald-white-paper-is-approved-by.html
As you should know, they, the British occupation in eretz Yisrael, enforced brutally this immigration quota DURING THE HOLOCAUST. If they were so sympathetic to the Jews being murdered in Europe, and wanted so badly to give the Jews their land back, why did the British block immigration and close the doors of this land to the Jews who were suffering in Europe ALL THROUGHOUT THE HOLOCAUST? The white paper is understood, as it only can be, as the British reneging on the previous promises made to the Jewish people. And it reflected a shift in the power base of the british parliament as well.
The "splitting" of the Mandate into "transjordan" and "palestine" was seen as a great tragedy by the zionist visionaries such as Jabotinsky. That was land stolen from the Jews and handed out to others of Arabian Hashemite tribal origins.
And in the end, it was only the Jewish resistance fighters of Lechi and Irgun that
forced the hand of the British by forcing them out, that the land ever became ours. Or at least free of British occupation that we were free to defend against the marauding Arabs and claim it for our own.
The Arabs resented the Jews coming and wars broke out which caused the Jews to gain more land.
Let us be clear. The Arabs (some of them) resented the Jews showing up, and launched a war to wipe them out. This is historical fact. But the land never belonged to Arabs. And it is true that some Arabs were honest enough to celebrate the Jews' arrival and take advantage of the vast economic gains and job opportunities this brought with it. Some of these hypocritically fought against the Jews anyway.
Furthermore, I question why you take it as a assumption that "resenting" someone's mere existence or arrival justifies the Arabs' attempt at committing a holocaust against these people.
