Y.D. wrote:

Hello Rabbi,
In the context of the previous question, can the pioneers be seen as a kind of Sabbateans, as Gershom Scholem described it? The pioneers argued that it was impossible to establish a Jewish state while observing Torah and commandments, not only in the passive psychological sense of the religious Jews, but also technically speaking (work on the Sabbath, security, maintenance of infrastructure, and so on). You still hear this claim today in the context of railway work on the Sabbath and the like. They were not Sabbateans in the formal sense, first of all because there is no longer any Shabbetai Tzvi, and besides that secularism gave them a convenient cover; but in practice they are hidden believers who, according to their way of thinking, are forced to be secular in order to sustain the Jewish state.
In this context, it seems to me that the Chazon Ish thought this as well. According to Benny Brown’s biography, the reason that, according to the Chazon Ish, one could not participate in the Zionist enterprise and had to withdraw into the wilderness was his experience with the settlements of Poalei Agudat Yisrael, which convinced him that a person’s participation in the Zionist enterprise necessarily leads him to cut halakhic corners. Even Rabbi Kook, who was far more lenient, came to a similar rupture with the religious kibbutz movement over milking on the Sabbath. The rupture was avoided only because of the invention of the automatic milking machine.
It seems to me that if this is correct, then even according to the Rabbi we are dealing with unconscious believers and not atheists.

There are major confusions here.
Shabbetai Tzvi was a believing person who corrupted the fundamentals of faith and Jewish law. Therefore, in his case there is such a phenomenon and such an interpretation. But the pioneers were not believers at all, so the problem was not that they distorted the fundamentals; they did not believe at all. These are two entirely different things.
And the Chazon Ish’s consideration was only practical. It was a concern about what would happen, and not related to judging the acts and the people themselves.

So in your view, “the spirit of God rested upon him” is a borrowed expression for the judge’s inner awakening, and not a kind of prophecy from above that stirs the person to act?

Possibly. But even if the spirit comes from God, that does not apply to a person who is not a believer and has no connection to it. These are two entirely different things. And even if God awakened him, it still has no religious value. I judge the person, not God, who awakened him.