SQUARE_ROOT:
I assume you won’t bother responding and will just find some more hevel uReus ruach to copy/paste to a new thread and just ignore the Torah’s view against your idolatry. But, on the off-chance that you do read this…
Your latest response to me is full of nonsense, and my quote of the Torah’s view on this topic has never been refuted, to my humble knowledge.
“Religious Zionism” is idolatry as per Rav Elchonon, the Brisker Rav (who lived there, too), and all the rest. No, of course that has zero to do with the first Rashi in chumash, Avraham Avinu and all the mitzvos that are dependent on being in E”Y. Your giluy panim baTorah sheLo kaHalacha of the gemara regarding one who lives in chutz laAretz is also silly. The basic understanding of that gemara is that those who live in Hashem’s land, E”Y, are under the “direct oversight”, so to speak, of Hashem, as opposed to those who live outside E”Y who are *also* under the oversight of the “sar” of the nation in which they live. Of course, the “sar” of the Zionist paradise is the Satan, so that presumably puts those living there under the oversight of the satan, too.
Your academic question of why the oaths do not appear in the Rambam’s Yad and in the S”A has zero impact on the halachic relevance of the oaths, as brought down by numerous poskim throughout the ages.
Additionally, the nations of the world did not ever approve the creation of a Jewish State in 1920, as you falsely claimed. Balfour did signify British approval of a “national homeland” for the Jews, but not necessarily sovereignty, and that declaration was anyways rescinded by the subsequent White Papers and also clarified by the British that the Zionists “read much more” into Balfour than was written there.
Even if none of that were true, that doesn’t at all mean, as you again falsely claim and with zero basis for the same, that “therefore the oaths cannot apply in our time”. Of course they can and do apply, and the creation of the Zionist paradise has zero impact on that applicability because, in part, it is those very oaths that forbade the founding of that “State” (in addition to the numerous other halachic problems in founding that “State”). Again, all the prohibitions of the oaths, including Meridah baUmos, dechikas haKetz and aliyah baChoma, remain just as severely prohibited now as they were throughout the ages.
Yes, Rav Elchonon never saw the “State”. But he saw its ideological engine, Zionism, quite well. And the Brisker Rav, the Chazon Ish and many other gedolim certainly did see that “State” and even lived in it, and held the same as did Rav Elchonon that Zionism is heresy and idolatry.
The Zionist victory in 1967 was not miraculous; it was derech haTeva. There certainly was hashgacha from Hashem, just as there is anything that Jews do. But their victory was very much not miraculous.
That “baal teshuva” movement you mentioned was only needed because the Zionists shmaded almost all the Jews there to begin with! And that anyways doesn’t change the Torah CH”V.
The Satmar Rav expressed numerous severe problems with the Zionist “State”, but socialism was obviously not a very big concern of his.
Regarding your ramblings at the end of your post:
No, there is no valid logic to those who disagree with the Torah’s viewpoint of the idol and heresy of Zionism. No, asking the gentiles to “take over” would not in any way lead to a “civil war” and attacks on Jews and another Holocaust, CH”V. First of all, it is the Zionists who caused the Holocaust (primarily to achieve their “State” afterwards. So that concern wouldn’t apply here. Second, the Jews there would be much safer under a normal gentile government than under the Zionist idolaters and heretics under which they live now. That is true both materially and spiritually. Your accusations of me at the end of your post are totally baseless and beyond the pale – and you’re likely projecting given that you are the Zionist.