Sales permit

Asks:

I accept the position, just a few questions to better understand, regarding what you said that the farmer will lose his customers, can't the same be said about a business owner or factory that observes Shabbat? In other words, even if the farmer loses his customers, is it serious enough to allow the prohibition of Shmita?
You also wrote that the Haredi solution is not applicable today, did you mean that it was applicable only in ancient times (say, the days of the First and Second Temples?).
Also, from what I know about the Haredi position, in contrast to the sale of chametz, where there is no problem for the selling side that the transaction will be carried out, in the sale of state lands, if the foreign side demands all of the state's lands, then the state will not agree to hand over all of its agricultural lands to foreign entities, and therefore, they see the sale as a kind of “work in the eyes”, in contrast to the sale of chametz where there is no problem selling all of the state's chametz.
Additionally, on the surface, it seems to me that selling land to an Arab is closer to the prohibition of not giving alms than providing a livelihood to a Gentile wherever he resides. After all, there is no prohibition against buying or selling any commodity to an Arab out of fear that it will strengthen his hold on the land and thereby violate the prohibition of not giving alms.
Additionally, doesn't it follow that it is actually possible to completely cancel the commandment of Shmita by selling it, thereby uprooting a mitzvah from the Torah?
— It permits the prohibition of Shmita, but it permits the cheating on the prohibition of Shmita. On Shabbat, I know of no way to cheat, and if there was such a way, then instead of a loss, it is permissible.
The Haredi solution of buying from non-Jews was not relevant in ancient times because then there was a promise in the Torah that in the sixth year there would be twice the harvest. Nowadays, when the seventh year is not in the Torah, there is no promise.
The sale is not a regular sale of land. And the question of whether it is a work in the eyes finds its solution in the way of sale. If it is legally valid, it is a valid sale and that is it. And in general, it does not matter what some or other people think. In terms of intentions, even in the case of chametz, the intentions are not different. Everyone sees it as a “ceremony of selling chametz.”
They do not sell him actual land.
Indeed, that is the real concern. But as mentioned, there is no commandment to shmita in Zama, and this is a rabbinic or custom. So in any case, it is nullified.
— I was troubled by a question regarding the validity of the sale. On the one hand, you claimed that the land is not actually being sold to a gentile (and therefore you do not violate the prohibition of non-begging), and on the other hand, you claimed that the sale is valid from a halakhic perspective and is not a fictitious sale (and therefore you do not violate the prohibitions of Shevi'it). There is a kind of contradiction here, isn't there?
— The question. You sell, but not the entire body of land. But what you sell is sold, meaning that this sale is valid according to Halacha and the law. For example, if I sell only the body of land for fruits and not the body itself, and is it impossible for such a sale to be valid?
If you want to delve deeper into this, there is material to read about the manner in which it is sold. I am not going into details either. I am sure there is a lot of material on the Internet.

To the best of my knowledge of the Haredi sector, those of the 'hardcore' type do not eat either hametz that is sold or a sale permit. Second, if you admit that you are not involved in the details, perhaps it is also impossible to rule firmly on the subject? (And also to derisively state that this is Haredi nonsense). Perhaps if you delve deeper you will discover that this is usually not done according to correct halachic grammar?

Sure, but business owners are allowed to sell their sourdough (and then, in a way that contradicts the categorical imperative and logic, do not consume it).
You don't need any knowledge of the practical details to determine what I determined.

Are you claiming that the decision to revoke the sales permit stems from a lack of care?

Regarding the claim about the farmer's losses and the promise of doubling the harvest, is the fact that the markets operate differently today a factor in this regard if we reach the binding conditions that existed then?

I didn't understand.

If part of the argument for the IHAT is that the farmer will lose, then given that agriculture is primarily based on economic rather than existential (i.e. the farmer does not necessarily feed on his produce) and markets are global, and supply and demand, etc., then guaranteeing a harvest will have less of an impact. Will that change the attitude?

I don't know. The promise also has meaning on a collective level.