Katan claims that The Chazon Ish held that wine owned by a “Religious Zionist” is yayin nesech.
This is sheker gamur.
.
The Chazon Ish did not hold that wine owned by a “Religious Zionist” is yayin nesech , only because of his religious zionism .
This is as clear as day.
.
.
What is possible that there was a man who was a RZ and in addition held other dei’ot kozvot.
And therefore was considered an apikores.
Those commenters like katan are not to be trusted .
They take reality and invert it , so that it fits their pre – imagined worldview.
.
.
Even SR am not sure whether he held a fully frum RZ as an apikores EVEN LEKULA
meaning that kidushin with fully frum RZ witnesses are null and void and do not need a get.
Am mistapek what he really held in such a case
remember — hafets hayim permits exaggerations in a case of malign influence .
could be SR exaggerated when he described RZ because of bad influence from RZ
.
.
.