Thank you very much for the interesting and relevant question.

The discussion about the three oaths is broad, interesting, and emotional. It is no secret that Rav Yoel Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rebbe, based his entire anti-Zionist worldview on the three oaths of Rebbi Zeira.

The accepted approach is that the fact of the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Conference, followed by the UN decision on the partition plan and, in fact, the right of the Jews to an independent state, basically means that there is no provocation of nations involved here. Rav Meir Simchah of Dvinsk wrote these things in his famous letter, but many more, both openly and silently, agreed to this argument. Rav Yoel argued on the other hand (among many other arguments) that although the majority of the nations of the world agreed on the establishment of the State, the oath not to provoke nations applies to each and every nation individually, and one should not follow the majority. And so his opinion was that we are still provoking the Arab nations when we establish the modern State of Israel.

I think that the main argument against the Midrash (which appears in the Gemara, of course) of the three oaths is that we cannot learn Halachah from a Midrash Agadah. Neither the Rambam nor any of the other early Poskim (Rif, Rosh, and others) brought these oaths as Halachah. The Rambam (in his Igeres Teiman) actually refers to the oaths and says that they are "b'Derech Mashal" (parable), and hence they have no Halachic validity.

The son of the Chafetz Chayim wrote that his father always encouraged Aliyah to Eretz Yisrael, and never mentioned the oaths as any kind of obstacle, although the Chafetz Chayim did not refer to the State of Israel of course, since he died before its official establishment. There are, of course, many other Gedolei Olam who talked about Aliyah, and some even actually made Aliyah to Eretz Yiarael, such as the Ramban and the Vilna Gaon and others, and no one mentioned the oath about taunting nations as an obstacle, but again, all this does not refer to Israel as a modern state.

There are other answers, too, although they are not mainstream views. Some claim that Rebbi Zeira himself retracted from his opinion and they bring a proof for this from a Midrash (Shir ha'Shirim Rabah 1:8).

Some say that the oaths are limited in time, and others say that the they are binding only if building the Beis ha'Mikdash is involved. It is brought down in the name of the Ba'al ha'Hafla'ah that the oaths prohibit coming to Eretz Yisrael only from Bavel but not from other exiles. Some see in Rashi's words that the prohibition of "la'Alos ba'Chomah" applies only when all of the Jews together come to Eretz Yisrael, but not when they come little by little.

But I think the main reason felt by many is that surely the oaths do not contradict the future Ge'ulah. Many see the establishment of the State of Israel as an amazing step towards the redemption of Yisrael, and even if it is not part of the redemption itself it is viewed as a miracle that foreshadows the times of the Mashi'ach in a supernatural way. And as I heard once, it's not that we are "Dochek Es ha'Ketz," but on the contrary, the Ketz is Dochek us!

Let's pray we hear only Besoros Tovos.

Best Regards,

Aharon Steiner