Halachic question regarding Israel

Hello. I also agree with your words:

On the 4th of Adar, 5778     not’ Peace and blessings     I’m having trouble understanding the discussion, and it seems to me that it is missing elements. I do not know of a single halachic authority who believes that if the very existence of the State of Israel is at stake in the face of surrendering part of its territory to the enemy, one must refrain from surrendering the territories, collapsing the State of Israel, and being conquered by the Gentiles, or being expelled from the land. Even Rabbi Avraham Shapira, zt”l, who led those opposed to giving up parts of the Land of Israel, wrote this at the end of his famous article on the subject, in the volumes of ‘Techumin’. Like many questions in Halacha, and like many issues in Gemara, in order to first go through a process of determining exactly what the question is up for discussion, and then we can see the range of opinions regarding it.     All the best And may the clarification be granted.  

Beyond that, you must define what a risk is. Many things we do constitute a risk to one degree or another, and not every such thing is considered a risk (even in the singular, a distinction is made between acceptable risks, about which it is said that God protects the simple, and significant and unacceptable risks). Although regarding war on the land, the Manach has already written that war itself is a risk, and this must certainly be done according to the mitzvah of conquering the land. Therefore, it is clear that danger to life does not exempt from conquering the land. But there we are talking about a risk to individual soldiers. A significant risk to the entire country rejects the conquest of the land by all accounts, even in doubt. Why? Because in my opinion, a significant risk to a country is judged as its certain destruction, just as in the case of an individual, a doubt in the Piku’n is judged as certain (see on the issue of Yoma here, where all the sources cited for the Piku’n rejecting Shabbat were rejected because they do not teach about doubt but only about certainty. We see that it was completely clear to the Gemara even before the sources were cited that the doubt is judged as certain). But from the same analogy, a small risk that countries take can also be taken here (although the public has become more serious in terms of the level of risks, but in my opinion this is a statistical question. See the article by Hanan Ariel’s students in Bezahar (many years ago) about charging for public transportation).