And if the Gazan died from collateral damage in an Israeli strike? Is it proper to rejoice over that or not?

To my mind it's the same thing. Rape is rape. I don't see the question here. Whatever you feel, you feel (I assume you won't feel anything).

Suppose it's a major earthquake in Gaza, and suppose I have technology that can predict such earthquakes. Would it be proper to warn the Gazans about it? Or specifically proper not to?

I definitely would not warn them. That's the legal and acceptable substitute for an atomic bomb.

According to that, would you oppose treating Gazan patients in Israeli hospitals?

In the current situation (that is, under Hamas rule), yes.

So would you distinguish here between the Arabs of Gaza and the Arabs of Judea and Samaria?

I wouldn't distinguish. There is no reason to treat our enemies.

But the leadership in Judea and Samaria isn't Hamas.

When I wrote Hamas, I meant enemies—as opposed to a new leadership that is willing to live alongside us.

With God's help, 12 Shevat 5784

In my humble opinion, the mission of the Jewish people is to be the "heart among the nations," in whom is fulfilled, "and through you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." How much sorrow we should feel when we see people created in the divine image, and who believe in the oneness of God, imprisoned by a tyrannical and cruel leadership that incites them to hate us and fight us in order to distract from their oppression by their murderous rulers.

We must do everything possible to win the war and protect the lives of our civilians and soldiers, and in war there are also "individuals who perish without justice," and there is no escaping that. But a feeling of sorrow over the need to perform a "painful surgery" should accompany us, and מתוך that it is proper to do what we can to help civilians despite the crimes of their leadership. Anyone among them who experiences the humanity of the Jews has some chance not to be dragged into the cycle of hatred and terror. And of course, we should not forget that "your life takes precedence."

Best regards, Fish"l

Following up on this question, suppose I am a doctor on duty in a hospital on the Sabbath and a case comes before me of a Gazan who needs life-saving treatment. Is it permitted to violate the Sabbath for him?

I didn't understand the question. How is a Gazan different from anyone else? If he is a terrorist, then in principle one should not treat him even on a weekday (except because of state law and public relations). And if he is uninvolved and his death is not necessary for victory, then one treats him like anyone else.

But above you wrote that you would not warn the Gazans about an earthquake. That is, I understand that you would not take active steps to save Gazans. So why would you violate the Sabbath for them?

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

There is a difference in policy. Between giving medical services to Gaza—which I oppose—and a hospitalized patient whom I do not treat and leave to die. When there is a patient in my care (who is not a terrorist), one treats him like any patient, on weekdays and on the Sabbath.

But if you oppose giving medical services to Gaza, that is a sign that the value of their lives is not important enough, or that there are other considerations that override it. And if so, once the value of their lives is overridden, how is it permitted to violate the Sabbath for them?

By the way, is it permitted to violate the Sabbath in order to save a terrorist if this is required because of state law or public relations?

This is not only a question of the value of life. Providing medical service is not an obligation of one state toward the citizens of another state. We do not provide such services to other friendly countries either. A state is not required to supply medical services to citizens of other countries, certainly not to enemies. But that is unrelated to the value of a person's life. The value of human life from every country is the same. Therefore, if he is hospitalized with us, it is impossible and improper not to treat him, even on the Sabbath. But it is not our job to give them medical services. Let them be treated in Europe or at home. And if they can't manage, that's their problem.

In principle, one may not violate the Sabbath at the Torah level except for the sake of saving a life. If in your assessment there is a risk to the lives of Jews or other people because you will not treat him, then there is permission to treat him. And when it comes to a state, the risks are much broader (even if they will boycott us or not supply us with weapons because of it—that can be a matter of saving life).

But regarding the example of warning about earthquakes, that costs us nothing. That is, if we had technology that predicts earthquakes anywhere in the world, I assume we would warn every country in the world except enemy states if we predict that they are about to have an earthquake. But above you said that you would not warn the Gazans about an earthquake. So something about the value of their lives, in your view, is different from the value of the lives of every other country / people. Maybe it is overridden by other considerations, but still there is something different here. There is here a kind of "do not stand idly by your neighbor's blood." And if so, why should we violate the Sabbath for someone we would not warn about an earthquake?

Earthquakes strike all Gazans, so giving them a warning means saving your enemy. If it were an earthquake expected to harm only some innocent person in Gaza, I would warn him. I have likewise written more than once that one may not kill a Gazan just like that. But it is permitted to kill him if this is necessary for the sake of victory and the required military achievement.