Ending exile is defined as a group of Jews, even if not the majority of the Jewish people, founding a government in Eretz Yisroel. This was done in the beginning of the Second Temple, although they were not truly independent as you say. But as individuals, Jews are allowed to live in Eretz Yisroel this is Rabbi Zeira's opinion in Kesubos 110b as opposed to Rav Yehuda, and this is how the halacha is ruled.

The question of exactly how many individuals may live in Eretz Yisroel, and what level of organization they may have, before the settlement crosses the line out of exile, is a difficult one. And I am aware that defenders of the Agudah approach have made just this argument to explain how the State of Israel escapes the Three Oaths see Rabbi Chaim Dov Altusky, Chiddushei Basra, Kesubos 111a. He takes this argument so far as to say that the State of Israel's submission to America on various occasions (such as in the Sinai/Suez campaign of 1956) is enough to call it exile.

During the course of history, the Jewish people moves among three political positions: 1) In exile, wandering among the nations, at the mercy of their hosts. 2) In their land as an independent kingdom, but not more powerful than any other country. 3) The most powerful kingdom in the world. The third position was reached briefly in the time of Shlomo Hamelech (Megillah 11b), and will be reached again when Mashiach comes (Rambam Melachim 12:4). The second position was the position of the Jewish kingdom in the Second Temple period and in much of the First Temple period. The first position, exile, has been our position since the destruction of the Second Temple. Rabbi Altusky is suggesting that since we expect to reach 3) in the Messianic era, to use our own powers to bring our position up to 2) is not called forcing the end.

He has a point certainly the second political level is not the end. But here we are treading on the thin ice of taama dekra, trying to rule halacha based on one particular understanding of the motive behind the halacha. How can we be sure that with the words, Do not force the end, Hashem meant, do not reach Level 3)? Perhaps He meant, do not leave exile before the time. Certainly Level 2) is not synonymous with exile. Is France in exile? Is England in exile? These countries were also expected to consult with America and the U.N. before making a military move. These countries were also rebuked in 1956.

One might argue that the Zionist state grovels before America more often than most other countries. This is, in fact, the pet complaint of the religious Zionist press in the United States. Whenever the Israelis are restrained from full retaliation, it provoke their ire. They accuse the world of being anti-Semitic, because it doesnt let the Zionist state do whatever it wants. This anti-Semitism, they say, is most prevalent in European countries, but even some American politicians are guilty of it. So perhaps Rabbi Altusky accepted this complaint as true, but turned it into an advantage, from an halachic standpoint: Because they are constantly restrained by the world, they are really still in exile, still on Level 1).

The flaw in this argument is that any independent country in the same position as the Zionist state would do the same. The Zionists knew in the 50s that they were caught at the front of the cold war between the two nuclear superpowers. The Soviets were against them, so they could not afford to lose the support of the other superpower, America. The same logic was behind the long delay before the Zionists attacked at the beginning of the Six-Day War.

Since the 60s, the State has been heavily dependent on America for money and arms. Noam Chomsky writes:

Prior to 1967, before the special relationship had matured, Israel received the highest per capita aid from the U.S. of any country. Commenting on the fact, Harvard Middle East specialist Nadav Safran also notes that this amounts to a substantial part of the unprecedented capital transfer to Israel from abroad that constitutes virtually the whole of Israels investment one reason why Israels economic progress offers no meaningful model for underdeveloped countries. It is possible that recent aid amounts to something like $1000 per year for each citizen of Israel when all factors are taken into account. Even the public figures are astounding. For fiscal years 1978 through 1982, Israel received 48% of all U.S. military aid and 35% of U.S. economic aid, worldwide. For fiscal year 1983, the Reagan administration requested almost $2.5 billion for Israel out of a total aid budget of $8.1 billion, including $500 million in outright grants and $1.2 billion in low-interest loans. (The General Accounting Office has informed Congress that the actual levels of U.S. aid may be as much as 60% higher than the publicly available figures.)

Thus it is only natural that the Zionists should at least make a show of consulting America at every step. But is this an exilic act? No, this is what any independent state would do if placed in their position.

It is true that there are certain levels of semi-independent behavior that are tolerated even during exile. In Babylon, the Jewish people had their own exilarch. In medieval Spain and later in Poland, the kingdom granted Jewish courts the right to enforce their own laws. Today in New York we have a system of Jewish anti-crime watchmen. Rabbi Altusky is certainly correct that this behavior must cross a certain line to be considered forcing the end. But we have no way of knowing where that line is. It would be very presumptuous to assume that establishing an independent state on a level with, if not more powerful than, most other countries of the world today is not crossing that line. In such situations, our only safe route is to continue in the way of our ancestors through the centuries of exile, doing nothing that we did not see them doing. Todays Zionist state certainly represents a level of independence unprecedented in Jewish exile. Thus, to permit it by calling it exile is a step we cannot take. Rabbi Altusky as well did not write his words as a ruling, but merely as a possibility, intended to stimulate further study.

You seem to have mistaken notions about my views. I do not say that Moshiach must be a prophet at these early stages. The fact that he brings all of Israel to teshuva is enough proof for him to continue and fight the wars. This is how the Rambam rules, in accordance with the Yerushalmi. The Bavli holds that he must also pass the sniff and judge test, but even the Bavli agrees that he need not pass that test right away at the beginning, as you rightly point out. His right to abrogate the oaths stands only on one thing: his ability to make everyone keep the Torah.

You call the abrogation of the oaths a hora'as sha'ah. But that's not the right concept. Think of Moshe Rabbeinu telling the Jews in Bamidbar 14: "Do not go up and do not fight, for Hashem is not in your midst." And then, 39 years later, he told them to cross the Jordan and fight the Canaanites. This is not hora'as sha'ah; the idea here is that there are different periods in history, in which we play different roles. We need a prophet or someone authorized by G-d to tell us which role to play. In the case of Moshiach, he might not be a prophet, but his authorization from G-d will come in the form of his succeeding in making all Jews keep the Torah.

You have said numerous times that Bar Kochba did not fulfill this criteria of making the Jews keep the Torah before he fought his wars, and you quote the Midrash which says that Rabbi Akiva believed him to be moshiach solely on the basis of his fighting ability. But I think I once quoted you the Tzror Hachaim by Rabbi Avraham Loewenstam (written in 1820) who asks how Rabbi Akiva was allowed to support Bar Kochba in light of the oaths, and answers that the oaths did not apply to Bar Kochba for a different reason: because the city of Beitar, in which Bar Kochba reigned for two and a half years, had never been conquered by Rome at all. Beitar was a living remnant of the Jewish kingdom that had existed before the destruction of the Temple. Evidence to this can be found in the words of the Midrash Eichah (2:2): Fifty-two years Beitar lasted after the destruction of the Temple. And why was it destroyed? Because they lit candles to celebrate the destruction of the Temple. The Midrash goes on to explain that they rejoiced that Jerusalem was gone, and now Beitar would be the commercial center of the Land. Thus, Beitar had been a Jewish center all along, and so in that region the exile was not considered to have begun.

Furthermore, it could be that Bar Kochba did use his leadership to make the Jews keep the Torah. He then went on to fight the Romans, and when he was successful at that, Rabbi Akiva concluded that he was moshiach. Thus the Midrash is telling us the second step followed by Rabbi Akiva's conclusion; the first step is assumed and not written explicitly in the Midrash.

You ask about Samson and the men of Yehuda. I don't think the Satmar Rav says anything on this, but I once heard the following explanation: Samson was different from the other judges in that his role was not to lead the Jews to battle and conquer the enemy, but he was to fight them alone. He was a kind of terrorist: he wrought destruction on the enemy as a one-man army, so that only he would be to blame, and the Jews would not suffer retaliation from the Philistines. Thus, he made his first fight against them look like it was just a personal vengeance for discovering the answer to his riddle in an unfair way. He second fight was another personal vengeance for them killing his wife and father-in-law. And the Jews caught him and handed him over to the Philistines, to make it clear that they were not behind his actions. This way the Philistines never fought back and killed Jews, they went only after Samson himself. This was G-d's plan for Samson, and it is alluded to in the words, "He bites the ankles of the horse, and its rider falls backwards" (Bereishis 49). He didn't fight them head on, he fought them like a snake on the ground.