yankel berel:
1. The S”A was not at all allowing the wicked heretics to establish an entire (shmad) “State” using terror and war against the nations – which even Rabbi Kook forbade. Obviously, one has nothing to do with the other.
2. He wasn’t referring to the oaths there, because the oaths aren’t counted as one of those issurim; but poskim throughout the ages bring them as being halachically applicable/practical, and there are open divrei chazal that mention terrible punishments R”L L”A that came about because of the oaths, like those from shevet Efraim who left Egypt early and harugei beithar about which we just learned over 9 Av.
3. This is an academic question, but in no way does that lack of inclusion act as a proof against the oaths, of course. It’s simply worth nothing that they aren’t found there, though other poskim certainly do bring them both before and after the S”A.
The oaths are practically in force, as proven by both poskim and history, which is why “Religious Zionist” idolater scholars make pathetic but futile attempts (beneath their academic abilities) at explaining them away.