The Rambam did hold that they should be kept, as he writes in his Iggeres Taimon. The only arguable point is if it is a Halacha, to the extent that one would be called an Avaryon for violating it. I never see the other 3 Shavuos getting the same harsh Kanaus. Many have been accused of trying to bring Mashiach before its time. They were never referred to as Ovdey Avoda Zara because of that. The Gemara in Shabbos calls Tzlafchad a Tzadick when considering him as one of the Ma’apilim.
I actually find this art point to be a strong Kasha on the Shita. I didn’t find anywhere in the Satmerer Rebba’s Sefarim that discusses it.
There is also another debate: Were the 2 Shavuos actually violated? The land was legally given to the Zionists, so they weren’t rebelling against the nations in that sense. As for the other Shavua, that would only be a violation if the whole Klal Yisroel would come together as a crusade. We find that in the days of Ezra, it was held against us that we didn’t go up Bechoma. Could it be that what the Zionists did is called Bechoma and what the Yidden did at the time of Koresh is not?
Perhaps you can call the bombing of British installments, a rebellion, perhaps not. However, that never seems to be the argument.