Just Emes:
I recall the thread from which you copy and pasted that whole post from. I presume you felt it would be better for me to repeat myself rather than copy my own responses in that thread.
Regardless, what comes out from your post is as follows:
There is nobody of note who seriously believes that the Zionists had a halachic right to found their State.
(Even the Zionists know that they had, AT BEST, a 50/50 chance of succeeding, viHaRaaya, look at what it took. So the pikuach nefesh alone would have been reason to not declare the State, even without the issue of the oaths.)
Even if your mistaken cheshbon regarding the UN was correct, which it is factually not, that would only cover the oath of being oleh biChoma.
It doesn’t mention that the Zionists took land which they were forbidden to take, like “West Jerusalem”. The UN intended that to be an international city, and it likely would have become an international city had the Zionists not brazenly chosen to go on the offensive and attack and try to conquer the Jerusalem, at which point they brought the Jordanians into the war and further sakana that this entailed. But that part was definitely biChoma and against the will of the nations.
But it would anyways NOT cover the oath of being madchik haKeitz, of having sovereignty before Mashiach, even with full permission, or even coercion to do so, of every single gentile on the planet.
So that’s anyways a non-starter.
Regarding this “B”D of Klal Yisrael”, you are grossly misunderstanding this.
As the Brisker Rav stated, the reason the state came into being is that Jews in Meah Shearim davened for the State instead of Mashiach and, as the poster there quoted Rav Weintraub, because the “B”D of Klal Yisrael” paskened that the State should come into action, EVEN THOUGH THEY PASKENED INCORRECTLY!
The Brisker Rav and the others held, and this is clear in hindsight, that this “B”D” was wrong in their pask, rationale, and hashkafa.
Psak: It was and is assur to have founded that State. Nothing to talk about.
Rationale: if you look at that “HaPardes”, the “B”D”‘s “support” for a State was CONDITIONAL on the following two items (at least those two, as I recall), none of which were kept by the Zionists:
1 – The State would be established peacefully and with no bloodshed.
2 – The State would not interfere with religious matters.
So their rationale was disproven.
Hashkafa: Their assumption was that since politically it seemed like the State was going to happen that they might as well go along for the ride. As the Brisker Rav noted, Hashem doesn’t look at what Reshaim do; but he does look at what Tzaddikim do.
And since these Tzaddikim paskened there should be a State (albeit conditionally), Hashem fulfilled their psak – with the disastrous results that we have seen, R”L L”A.
As I wrote in that post, the Zionists have no answers.