And again you lie about the Bach. He does not “make clear that Jewish people as a whole are not to wage wars”. Nowhere in his words is any such thing hinted at. You are simply making it up.

Yes, the Rambam holds that mitzvas kibush ho’oretz doesn’t apply nowadays. We all know that, it’s a famous machlokes between him and the Ramban, but what has that got do with anything? He certainly doesn’t forbid wars, and nor does he say that a war to save Jews from attack is not a milchemes mitzvah. The Rambam also (unlike the Ramban) holds that yishuv ho’oretz is not a mitzvah nowadays, but he certainly doesn’t forbid it; on the contrary, he encourages it! So something not being a mitzvah doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. And he doesn’t mention the three shevu’os at all, which means he doesn’t hold them to be halacha, so he would permit (and perhaps even encourage) the conquest of EY bizman hazeh, if it proved possible. So why you bring him up in the first place is a mystery.

What is an “officially Jewish state”, and how is it relevant? The Khazars had a Jewish army, which had to follow halacha. So did the Jewish Arab tribes whom Mohammed slaughtered, and the Jewish Berber tribes. So did Mar Zutra’s state, which was surely “officially Jewish” if such a concept even existed in those days, long before the Treaty of Westphalia created the modern state. And so did the Jewish militias of Nehardea, which the gemoro is talking about in Eruvin, in the language which ended up in Orach Chayim 329. They are all Jewish armies, they are all bound by halacha, and they all have a chiyuv (whether or not it’s a formal mitzvah of the 613) to go to war when enemies threaten a “border city”.

He does not say that we’re not to go to war at this time, but merely points out the obvious fact that “nowadays”, i.e. in his time, we didn’t go to war. There were no Jewish armies, and no prospect of any in the foreseeable future, so he wondered why the Tur brought down a practical halacha about war. The Rambam wrote all the halochos, whether they’re practical today or not, but the Tur only wrote those halochos that were in practise in his time, and yet here he cites a halacha about going to war and Oneg Shabbos! So the Bach explains why this halacha is still relevant.

Nowhere, though, does the Bach say that we are not to go to war on our own. He merely observed as a practical fact that we didn’t go to war in his day, because we had no army. Now that we do have an army, and do go to war, we can answer the Bach’s question much better than he did: what wasn’t practical in 14th century Spain or 17th century Poland was and is practical in other times and places of our current golus. It was practical for the Kuzarim, it was practical for Mar Zutra, it was practical for the Jewish tribes of Arabia and the Jewish Berber tribes, and it is practical for the IDF today. That is a deliberate misrepresentation on your part, for which you ought to apologise, but I don’t expect that you will.

The MB is relying on this second reason, but he doesn’t say that the locals will kill us if we don’t join the defense, just that the government will be angry at us. Maybe that’s what he means, and he didn’t want to say so because of the censor, or maybe the whole thing is for the censor’s benefit and he expects us to look it up and find for ourselves when it’s mutar and when it’s asur.

At any rate, the MB is certainly not saying, as you claim, that we may only go to war if the government forces us. If it’s עיר הסמוכה לספר then it’s a clear halocho that we must go to war, even on Shabbos. If it’s not, and the raiders are not likely to kill anyone if we don’t resist, then me`ikar hadin we may fight during the week but not on Shabbos, but the MB adds that nowadays if the government forces us we go anyway.

In Eretz Yisroel today every attack is עיר הסמוכה לספר. That is obvious to anybody. Therefore the clear halocho that is in the gemoro and agreed on by all poskim, is that we must fight. The only question is who should physically take up arms, and who should stay behind and learn for the benefit of the fighters, or cook for them, or procure arms, or fix tanks, or make sure they get paid, etc.

Liar. (I assume you meant 329) He says the exact opposite, that nowadays we must fight even if it’s על עסקי ממון and not עיר הסמוכה לספר.

The shulchan Oruch on 229 is talking about a case when you are in a city and your obligated by your state to protect it (Mishna Brurah),

Liar, the MB says no such thing. The Shulchon Oruch specifically says עיירות ישראל, not cities of other nations. The MB explains that עיר הסמוכה לספר means a city that is on the border between a Jewish-inhabited area and a non-Jewish one. This isn’t a chidush of the Shulchon Oruch, it’s a direct quote from the gemoroh, which is talking about Jewish cities in Nehardea.

Then the MB adds a new thing, not an explanation of the Shulchon Oruch — that even in a situation where according to the gemoro and the Shulchon Oruch we must not fight on Shabbos, nevertheless nowadays we must fight them for fear of government reprisals if we don’t, and because of dina demalchusa dina. This is not the halacha anyone is discussing here, and indeed it’s probably not really a halacha at all, but only put in for the censor’s benefit. (The bit about dina demalchusa is clearly only for the censor’s benefit, because everyone who knows a little halacha can see that it’s a ridiculous notion. Whether the rest of that piska is also for the censor I’m not sure; he says it’s in the Agudah and the Rokeach, but doesn’t give a reference so I could look it up.)