Yes, Yechezkel says that the exile is a chillul Hashem, because the nations will see that we were thrown out of our land, and they will say that Hashem did not have the power to save us (Rashi and Metzudos). But this was Hashem's decision that we should be in exile, not our own. And when we will go back from the exile is also up to Hashem. That is what Yechezkel says right after that, "And I will sanctify My great name... And I will take you from the nations and gather you from the lands..." Hashem will do the gathering, not us.

The argument that the oaths are Aggada leads us to the question of what exactly is the definition of Aggadah. If you say Aggadah is the kind of Gemora that explains the punishment for sins and quotes verses to support it, upon analysis you will see that those kinds of Gemoras can be divided into two categories: those that contain a new halacha not found elsewhere, and those that do not. Those that contain a new halacha are always brought by the Rambam and other poskim, just like any halacha Gemora. There are some that are omitted, but then there are many halacha Gemoras that the Rambam omits as well, and we always have the job of finding the reason why he omitted it. You can either 1) find another Rambam which includes or implies the halacha in question; or 2) find another Rambam which shows that he didn't pasken like the halacha in question or 3) leave it as a kashya. However you cannot just say flatly that if the Rambam omits it it's not halacha.

In this case the oaths are brought by other poskim such as the Rivash (101), the Rashbash (2), the Avnei Nezer (454), Rabbi Shmuel Salant, and the Aruch Hashulchan (Choshen Mishpat 2:1) and discussed as any other halacha. The question of why the Rambam omitted them is academic.

The laws of the mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel are not denied by us or anyone else, are not in dispute, and have nothing to do with this discussion.

As far as the argument that the oaths are dependent on each other, similar to the oath of Avraham and Avimelech (Sotah 10a), one need not look far to see the fallacy of this argument. Avraham and Avimelech swore not to harm one another, so when one harmed the other the covenant was broken. But why does one nation harming the Jews in exile give the Jews the right to take Eretz Yisroel away from a different nation that occupies the land? Why should one nation suffer for the violation of another nation?

Furthermore, Rabbi Shmuel ben Yitzchak Yaffe in his commentary Yefeh Kol to the Midrash Shir Hashirim points out that since there is already an oath not to rebel against the nations, the oath about going up as a wall cannot mean only taking the land by military force, because that would be superfluous it would be included in the general prohibition on rebellion. Rather, it means that any effort to take possession of Eretz Yisroel, even with the approval of the nations living there, is forbidden. With this in mind, one cannot possibly say that the oaths are some sort of deal between the Jews and the gentiles, for the oath prohibits Jews from taking the land even when gentiles allow it. The violation of this oath is not a sin against the gentiles, but a sin against Hashem Himself. Violation of the oath against forcing the end, which includes false messiahs and, according to Rashi, even excessive prayer, is certainly not a sin against the gentiles but against Hashem Himself.

Also, although the great destruction wrought by Germany is the worst our people have ever suffered, there is no reason to say that previous massacres such as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, the destruction of Beitar, the Crusades and the massacres of 1648 (Tach Vetat) did not constitute a violation of the gentiles oath. Why then did the Zionist idea sprout only in this most recent century? In previous generations not only was such an idea never entertained, but it was expressly forbidden by the greatest Torah sages of the time. The Amoraim lived after the Roman massacres and yet they recorded the Three Oaths in the Gemora as practical law. The Rambam knew of the early Crusades and also terrible persecutions in his own lands by the Muslims, and yet he warns the Yemenite Jews not to violate the oaths. The same is true of the other Rishonim mentioned above who bring the oaths.

The Satmar Rov writes that the Gemora about Eretz Yisroel producing fruit means either in a miraculous way new fruits growing every day, as we see in Shabbos 30b that they will do this in the time of Moshiach or else it at least means like the way it was in the times of Tanach see Rashi on Bamidbar 13:23 where he talks about the great size of the fruits brought back by the spies. But if they grow naturally like in the rest of the world the more work you put into it, the more it grows that is not a proof of anything.

In general, whenever people bring proof from the successes of the Zionists their successes in agriculture, in diplomacy or in battle they are missing an important point. Such arguments do have a wide appeal, for every Torah Jew believes that Hashem did, does and will do all things. The fallacy of the argument lies in the undeniable fact that there is evil in this world. Hashem allows people free will to choose to do wrong, and even to be successful in doing wrong on a large scale. The relationship between Hashems will and mans free will is explained by the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 5:4). Only historical amnesia could allow a person to pretend that the entire growth process of the Zionist State was simply willed by Hashem, and all the people involved were swept away by Hashems overpowering will. The truth is that Zionism was a movement of Jews with a powerful sense of purpose, who dedicated their entire lives and often gave their lives toward the effort of building the land and the state. Every diplomatic achievement and every military achievement came through the effort of these dedicated people. Why Hashem decided to grant their efforts some degree of success is one of the mysteries of our era. But the fact that they succeeded is no more a proof that they were doing the right thing, than is the fact that the Germans succeeded in killing six million Jews a proof that they were doing the right thing.

In case you don't want to take this argument from me, here's a clip from Rabbi Avigdor Miller, end of tape #109.

Heres a question: Couldnt it be that Hashem helped the Zionist leaders, as He helped lehavdil Shimshon Hagibor and Yiftach Hagiladi, who were both simple people? Theres no question that Hashem helped them. He helps anyone who does things. Nobody can succeed without the help of Hashem. So therefore, the fact that He helps them doesnt mean that He endorses their policies. Because you have also people who everybody agree were wicked, and they were helped. But Hakadosh Boruch Hu, when the time comes, withdraws his help. And now Hes giving a hint that its not going to last forever, unless people change their ways. And every shell thats lobbed across by mortars and bazookas across the border is saying something. Of course, if you wont listen, it might be too late. If theyll listen and take the message to heart maybe Hakadosh Boruch Hu is talking to them! No question that He is. Every time theres a terrorist attempt, its a message min hashomayim.

Finally we come to Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer. Reb Hirsch was a gaon and a tzaddik and brought proof for his view from Tanach and the words of Chazal, adding to this the logic that the difficult times Jews were having among the nations at that time was a sign that the time of the redemption was near. Reb Hirsch sent letters to the wealthy Jews of the time, Baron Asher Anshel Rothschild and Sir Moses Montefiore, exhorting them to support the building of the Land, and indeed his influence on them was great.

At first he discussed with the gedolim of his generation his plans to increase settlement, and more importantly, to better the conditions of the existing settlements. Almost all of the gedolim agreed with him, and many, including Rabbi Dovid Friedman of Karlin, Rabbi Yaakov Etlinger, author of Aruch Laner, Rabbi Shimon Sofer of Cracow, Rabbi Yitzchok Elchonon Spector of Kovno, and Rabbi Eliyahu Gutmacher of Greiditz, even helped him to spread his ideas. But then Reb Hirsch expanded his ideas to form a plan to begin the redemption through human effort. This included three areas of effort: mass settlement of the Land, working the Land, and building the altar in Jerusalem and offering sacrifices. He published these ideas in 1862 in his books Drishas Tzion and Shlom Yerushalayim. Then most of the gedolim broke away from him, each for his own reasons. Even his closest ally, the rov of Greiditz, broke away, fearing that too much excitement about mass emigration would lead to violation of the Torah, especially the mitzvos relating to the Land. This is apparent from a letter by Rabbi Kalischer to the rov of Greiditz, printed in The Writings of Rabbi Kalischer (Jerusalem, 1947), p. 230.

There was opposition to every detail of Reb Hirschs plan, from the sacrifices to the idea that the true redemption will come little by little, starting with the redemption of the land. But besides problems with the details, the gedolim were afraid that the reforming groups who joined the movement would eventually organize a mass aliyah, involving a confrontation with the gentile power that ruled the Land, something even Reb Hirsch opposed. See his letter to Reb Meir Auerbach: Those who fell into pits in earlier times they were the ones who came illegally, using force, and they almost transgressed the oath not to arouse&. But I have already written about this in my book, that my Organization to Settle Eretz Yisroel is not like them. (The Writings of Rabbi Kalischer, p. 204) See also Rabbi Alexander Moshe Lapidos defense of the movement, printed in Shivas Tzion (v. 1 p. 35): When this movement first began to capture Jewish hearts, there were many who opposed it, but now almost all the opposition is gone. The people who already realized that we have no plans to take the Holy Land from the Turks with sword and bow, and we have no plans to make a government there. Our entire goal is to found an organization of farmers who work the land&and this poses no problem of forcing the end&

So you see that even Rabbi Kalischer agreed that the oaths were in force and he had no intention of violating them.

The Ramban does not mean that the mitzvah during exile is the same
obligation as during the time of the Beis Hamikdash: to conquer the
land and drive out its inhabitants. Rather, he means that it is a
mitzvah for an individual Jew to live in the land. This is apparent
from the Ramban's choice of words: "If so, it is a positive
commandment for all generations, in which every one of us is
obligated, even during the exile." The words "every one of us" mean
that it is a mitzvah on individuals and not on the Jewish people as a
whole.

This is explained by the Rashbash that I mentioned in my last letter
(Responsa, #2): "There is no doubt that living in Eretz Yisroel is a
great mitzvah at all times, both during and after the time of the
Temple, and my grandfather the Ramban counted it as one of the
mitzvos, as it says, 'You shall take possession of it and live in it,'
and so is the opinion of my father the Rashbatz in his work Zohar
Harakia. And even according to the Rambam who did not count it as a
mitzvah, it is at least a Rabbinic mitzvah, besides the many other
benefits of living there. However, during exile this is not a general
mitzvah for all Jews, but on the contrary it is forbidden, as the
Gemora says in the last chapter of Kesubos, that this is one of the
oaths that the Holy One, blessed is He, made the Jews swear: that they
not hurry the end and not go up as a wall. Go and see what happened
to the children of Ephraim when they hurried the end! However, it is a
mitzvah for any individual to go up and live there, but if there are
considerations that prevent him he is not obligated."

Similarly, Rabbi Shmuel Salant quotes the law that a wife may force
her husband to move to Eretz Yisroel (Kesubos 110b), and then asks
why even according to the Ramban, he says, there is no obligation on
every Jew to move to Eretz Yisroel, since this is one of the Three
Oaths. He therefore explains that she can only force him to move if
she is willing to move even without him. In that case, if he refuses
to come along, he is not fulfilling his marital obligations to her,
and he must divorce her. But if she wants to move only with him, then
he has no obligation to move. (Printed in Tzefunos, year 3 issue 1, p.
46)

The Rambam's ruling that the laws of nature will continue during the
times of moshiach does not mean that the geulah or any part of it will
happen without moshiach! The Rambam, in contrast to the Raavad, rules
that moshiach will not have to perform any miracles to prove himself
(Melachim 11:3). However he will have to bring all the Jews to teshuva
(ibid. 11:4). Once he does that and establishes himself as moshiach,
we will be allowed to follow him in gathering the exiles and building
Jerusalem and the Beis Hamikdash. Until then we must only wait.