ultra-Orthodox Jews against Isarel. What does Chaim say?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Wouldn't this supposed "oath" have been broken by two neviim Ezra and Nehemia who led Jews en masse to Israel upon the Persian kings decree that Jews should rebuild the temple and Jewish kingdom?  Was this oath supposedly made after the second destruction, and if so, why such a different scenario than that which followed the first in which Jews most certainly went en masse to Israel.  In addition, why is the international approval of various allied powers for Jews' resettlement of Israel so blatantly ignored (in addition to the individual settling Jews buying land of Arabs and not kicking people out) by those who keep pushing this oath nonsense about not taking the land by force.  By definition, going there with approval of various leaders of the goyim and going there and PURCHASING land often at a price way above market value for under-productive land (at least for the Arabs.  We made it bloom), this is by definition not taking it by FORCE.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Daf 110B, says something along the lines of, if you live outside the land of israel it is as if you are an idolator.
The non zionist guy made a great point though.. he said "the rabbis that wrote that were living in babylon, so you have to ask what they meant"..
I guess he is right..

LOL, then in that case, we have to ask WHO wrote the oaths, and what did THEY mean by them?  To dismiss a talmudic teaching outright like this (G-d forbid), we can dismiss any teaching outright (G-d forbid) and that includes this silly oath argument!

[q_q_]

Daf 110B, says something along the lines of, if you live outside the land of israel it is as if you are an idolator.
The non zionist guy made a great point though.. he said "the rabbis that wrote that were living in babylon, so you have to ask what they meant"..
I guess he is right..

LOL, then in that case, we have to ask WHO wrote the oaths, and what did THEY mean by them?  To dismiss a talmudic teaching outright like this (G-d forbid), we can dismiss any teaching outright (G-d forbid) and that includes this silly oath argument!

You are taking what I said out of context.

I said to the non zionist about the importance of living in israel.. and I used THAT as a proof.

He replied with that response, which was very correct of him. (doesn`t mean he is right to be a non zionist)

BTW, as mentioned, both Reb Zeira and Rav Yehuda did take the 3 oaths seriously. Reb Zeira said it applied to en masse, not to individuals. So your parallel does not work.. (nevertheless, it may -still- be that they meant it differently,). As mentioned, it does also say elsewhere on one of those 2 pages, that if  living in babylon, stay in babylon, and if living in israel, stay in israel. I did mention that as problematic, seems inconsisitent with the 3 oaths. Of course we have to ask what things mean..That is obvious.