benignuman, no, that was not the position of the Ohr Sameach. We discussed this already. The UN is not representative of the entire world, much as they wish they were, and the Arab locals very much did not agree. Neither, for that matter, did the UK, who said that the Zionists were reading far more into their permission than they had intended. The Zionists clearly rebelled against the nations, and “Religious Zionists” struggle to find a heter for that rebellion, which they can’t.
Regardless, even if it were with everyone’s permission, this would only address the oaths of rebelling against the nations, not the oath of going up en mass.
As for the false claim of the oaths not being halacha, we covered this already also. The oaths are brought lihalacha by other poskim. (The lack of presence in Shulchan Aruch does not indicate its Halachic status.) The Rambam certainly believed it’s halacha when he wrote about it in Igeres Teiman. The Maharal said not to violate the oaths even if the nations forced Klal Yisrael to do so.
The Tzitz Eliezer also thought it was with everyone’s permission, etc. and not to establish a political rulership, only to live there.
Religious Zionists spill much ink trying to explain away the oaths. Just look at the Ohr Sameach you quoted, who clearly did hold of the oaths (until the Zionists mistakenly claim they became battel with some nations’ permission). This is a very basic distortion of the Ohr Sameach, as I wrote.
But the Zionists don’t have any reasonable answers to justify their idolatry and against the oaths because there are no such answers.