Three Oaths - Prevent settlement of Israel?

Rabbi David Bleich (Contemporary Halakhic Problems I page 14):

The prime argument cited in objection to the War of Independence, and indeed to the very establishment of the state itself, is based upon a literal understanding of the Talmud, Ketubot 111 a. In an aggadic statement, the Talmud declares that prior to the exile and dispersal of the remnant God caused the Jews to swear two solemn oaths: (I) not to ke the Land of Israel by force, and (2) not to rebel gainst the nations of the world. Rabbi Zevin maintains that these talmudic oaths are not binding under circumstances such as the ones which surrounded the rebirth of the Jewish state.

In support of this view he marshals evidence from a variety of sources. Avnei Nezer, Yoreh De'ah, II, 454:56, notes that there is no report in any of the classic writings regarding an actual assemblage for the purpose of accepting these oaths, as is to be found, for example, in the narrative concerning the oaths by which Moses bound the community of Israel prior to the crossing of the Jordan. The oaths administered before the exile are understood by Avnei Nezer as having been sworn by yet unborn souls prior to their descent into the terrestrial world. Such oaths, he argues, have no binding force in Halacah. Similarly, the Maharal of Prague in his Commentary on the Aggada, 11 a, and in chapter 25 of his Netzah Yisrael, interprets these oaths as being in the nature of a decree or punishment rather than as injunctions incumbent upon Jews in the Diaspora. There is obviously no transgression involved in attempting to mitigate the effects of a decree.

A third authority, R. Meir Simchah of Dvinsk, author of the Or Sameach, accepts the premise that these oaths do apply in a literal sense. However, he expresses the opinion that following the promulgation of the Balfour Declaration, establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine no longer constitutes a violation of the oatb concerning rebeIIion against the nations of the world. The text of Or Sameach's statement on this important issue is reprinted by Z. A. Rabiner, Toledot R. Meir Sameach (Tel.Aviv, 5727), p. 164. Rabbi Zevin adds that this argument assumes even greater cogency subsequent to the United Nations resolution sanctoning the establishment of a Jewish state.

There is yet another line of reasoning on the basis of which Rabbi nature of these oaths at the present juncture of Jewish history. He advances a forceful argument which, particularly in the present post-Holocaust era, must find a sympathetic echo in the heart of Jews who have witnessed an unprecedented erosion of all feelings of humanity among the nations of the world which permitted the horrendous oppression and torture of the Jewish people. The Talmud, loc. cit., records that the two oaths sworn by the people of Israel were accompanied by a third oath which devolves upon the nations of the world; namely, that they shall not oppress Jews inordinately. According Zevin and others who have advanced the same argument, these three oaths taken together, form the equivalent of a contractual relationship. Jews are bound by their oaths only as long as the gentile nations abide by theirs. Persecution of the Jews by the nations of the world in violation of this third oath releases the Jewish people from all further  obligation to fulfill the terms of their agreement.