Just Emes:
The actual emes is that a good portion of that Agudah knessiah, and not just the Brisker Rov, were against Zionism and against the creation of a State even if (other than the oaths) the State would be run al pi Torah. The Ohr Sameach, too, endorsed the oaths as being halachicly applicable. I wrote about this above.
I also pointed out in my previous post that the Agudah’s “psak” to not hold back accepting the State, whatever that’s supposed to mean, was with the explicit stated understanding that the Zionists would not interfere (negatively) in religious observance. The Zionists very much did and do. So the whole psak seems rather invalid.
You can’t throw out the window a bifeirush gemara, the Rambam, poskim, the Maharal, acharonim, the Chofetz Chaim, the Satmar Rov, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, Rav Aharon Kotler, the Brisker Rov, the Chazon Ish, et al. regarding the oaths with clear accompanying historical record and current events of Zionist aveiros chamuros besides for shmad, etc. just because of an ambiguous story about Rav Moshe with no context of time, place, precision (working with the Zionists versus being a Zionist CH”V), etc. Yiftach biDoro does not allow for this.
I’m not CH”V questioning Rav Moshe’s validity as a posek haDor. Aderaba, I want to know what he held about all these points I mentioned before. This would clarify the issue.
I already addressed your HaKaras HaTov point in my previous post.