Rejoice in the fall of your enemy

And if Azati dies from collateral damage from an Israeli attack? Should we rejoice over that or not?

To me, it's the same thing. It's rape and it's rape. I don't see the question here. Whatever you feel, feel it (assuming you don't feel anything).

If we assume there is a major earthquake in Gaza, and we assume I have technology that can predict such earthquakes, is it appropriate to warn the Gazans about it? Or is it appropriate not to?

I really wouldn't warn them. It's the legal and acceptable substitute for an atomic bomb.

Based on this, would you oppose the treatment of Gazan patients in Israeli hospitals?

In the current situation (i.e. under Hamas leadership), yes.

In other words, would you divide here between the Arabs of Gaza and the Arabs of Judea and Samaria?

I wouldn't share. There's no reason to take care of our enemies.

But the leadership in Judea and Samaria is not Hamas.

When I wrote Hamas, I meant enemies. An era of new leadership that is willing to live alongside us.

On the 12th of Shvat, the 12th of the month of Sheva It is appropriate that you accompany us, and from within it it is appropriate to do what is possible to help the citizens despite the crimes of their leadership. Whoever will experience the humanity of the Jews – has a certain chance of not being drawn into the cycle of hatred and terror. And of course, let us not forget that ’your life is before’.

Best regards, Fish”l

Continuing with this question, let's assume that I am a doctor at a hospital on duty on Shabbat and I come across a case of a patient who needs life-saving treatment. Is it permissible to desecrate Shabbat for him?

I didn't understand the question. What makes Gaza different from anyone else? If he's a terrorist, then in principle he shouldn't be treated even in the world (except for state laws and public relations). If he's not involved and his death isn't necessary for victory, then he's treated like anyone else.

Above you wrote that you would not warn the Gazans of an earthquake. That is, I understand that you would not take any active action to save the Gazans. So why would you desecrate Shabbat for them?

And you also wrote that you oppose the treatment of Gazan patients in Israeli hospitals. So if by chance a Gazan patient has already arrived at an Israeli hospital, why should we desecrate Shabbat for him?

There is a difference between policy. Whether to provide medical services to Gaza, which I oppose, and a hospitalized patient that I do not treat and leave to die. When I have a patient (who is not a terrorist), I treat him like any other patient, on weekdays and Saturdays.

But if you oppose providing medical services to Gaza, it is a sign that the value of their lives is not important enough, or that there are other considerations that reject it. And if so, once the value of their lives is rejected, how is it permissible to violate Shabbat against them?

By the way, is it permissible to violate Shabbat to save a terrorist if it is required by state law or public relations?

This is not just a question of the value of life. Providing medical services is not a state's duty to citizens of another state. We do not provide such services to other friendly states either. A state is not obligated to provide medical services to citizens of other states, and certainly not to enemies. But this has nothing to do with the value of a person's life. The value of people's lives from every state is the same. Therefore, if he is hospitalized with us, it is impossible and wrong not to treat him, even on Shabbat. But it is not our job to provide them with medical services. Let them be treated in Europe or with them. And if they don't get along, that is their problem.

In principle, one should not violate Shabbat in the Torah except for the sake of a pikun. If in your opinion there is a risk to the lives of Jews or other people because you do not treat, there is permission to treat. And when it comes to the country, the risks are much broader (even if they boycott us or do not provide us with weapons because of this - that could be a pikun).

But regarding the example of earthquake warnings, it costs us nothing. That is, if we suppose we had technology that predicts earthquakes anywhere in the world, I suppose we would warn every country in the world except enemy countries if we predict that they will have an earthquake. But above you said that you would not warn the Gazans of an earthquake. That is, something about their value of life from your perspective is different than the value of life of any other country/people. Maybe it is rejected due to other considerations, but there is still something different here. There is a kind of "you shall not stand for the blood of your neighbor." And if so, why would we desecrate the Sabbath for someone we do not warn about an earthquake?

Earthquakes affect all Gazans, so giving them a warning is saving your enemy. If there was an earthquake that was only expected to affect someone innocent in Gaza, I would warn them. I have also written many times that you should not kill just any Gazan. But you are allowed to kill him if it is necessary for the victory and the required military achievement.