AAQ:
Avira > The balfour declaration (and even the UN partition plan) are irrelevant because when the zionists took over, the british were no longer baalei batim on the land.
>> Actually, it’s much more than that. The British essentially rescinded that with the subsequent white-papers and, in any even, permitted only settlement, not political rule which the oaths separately forbid regardless. In other words, the only thing that Balfour would have accomplished, while it effectively was operative, is that the nation in power there would have allowed non-political settlement so doing that would not have been a rebellion against the nations.
This is very brisker for me. Could you unpack this in detail step by step? From my simple reading, there were several steps:
(1) initial zionist yishuv, somewhat supported by a small number of rabonim, but no others,
>> No. Initial NON-Zionist yishuv, as in chovevei tzion, for settlement and non-political purposes only, was supported by only some rabbanim.
(2) Balfour declaration – that made further arrivals not violating shvuos as they came with permission
>> No. See above. Only during that time, pre-white-papers, would arrivals have been with permission and therefore not a rebellion.
(3) state declaration by those who already arrived – not by shvuos – it is just a declaration, not arrivals and with UN permission
>> Declaration of State was forbidden for numerous reasons as per various gedolim. It was against the UN which wanted to restart a Mandate there. It required massive sacrifice of Jewish lives, which was also forbidden.
(4) later arrival from DP camps, arab countries, USSR – all according to international laws
>> The State in which they arrived was and is forbidden. Thus, living there could still be a violation of the oaths even after the Zionists muscled their way in. For example, Rav Shach held it forbidden to live in the territories as an “higarus gasa baUmos haOlam”.