Traveling to Israel amidst Challenging Times

As the winter vacation rapidly approaches, many individuals aspire to travel to the Holy Land. However, concerns persist about potential dangers, instilling fear among those contemplating the journey. If there is indeed a perceived danger, some may question the halachic permissibility of such travel, considering the Torah's directive to prioritize the preservation of life.
It is stated in the gmara (Shabbat 32a): "A person should never place himself in a dangerous situation, relying on the hope that a miracle will be performed for him, as perhaps a miracle will not happen. And even if a miracle is performed for him, it will be deducted from his merits." Moreover, one who enters a dangerous situation is destined to face heavenly judgment, as mentioned in the Sefer Chassidim (תרע''ה), which states, "Yet, only your blood will I require" – if a person dies due to his transgressions, such as engaging in a quarrel that leads to his death, he is destined to face judgment for causing his own demise. Similarly, if he goes into a hazardous place, like walking on ice in winter and falling into water, leading to drowning, or if someone enters an old and dilapidated house, and it collapses on him while inside, or if he engages in a dispute with a violent individual, provoking and infuriating them, resulting in injuries— all these individuals are destined to face judgment for causing their own deaths through their confrontations with others, playing with the inevitable. Thus, we learn that a person should avoid entering hazardous places.
Certainly, at first glance, it appears that a person should refrain from willingly exposing themselves to potential danger, as the Torah instructs, " Beware for yourself; and guard your soul". The Rambam writesפרק יא מהלכות רוצח ושמירת הנפש ה''ד) ן (: ”any obstacle that poses a danger to life, one is commandment to remove it, be cautious of it, and be careful with things that are good, as it is said, 'Take care for yourself, and guard your soul. We also find similarly in Shulchan Aruch )Choshen Mishpat 427:8 and 7(.

However, a question arises here, as we find many instances where there is no prohibition against taking risks. On the contrary, our sages employed language instilling a sense of security. For example (Shabbat 105a; Ketubot 104a) Chazal used the expression "שומר פתאים השם" (Hashem protects the innocent) implies that a person can walk innocently with Hashem and not worry about impending dangers.
Poskim have elucidated several distinctions to provide clarity on when to be concerned about potential danger and when to proceed confidently.

Distinction between Certain and Uncertain Dangers:
Sefer Binyan Tsion (סימן קלז) and Rav Menashe Klien In Mishneh Halachot ( (ח''ה סי' רלד wrote that a distinction is made between a clear and visible danger and probable danger. Regarding clear and visible danger, we do not say "Shomer Petaim Hashem" or "שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע,"- (A person who performs a mitzvah should not come to harm), as the power of nature is strong, and one should not expect a miracle to save him. For example, if an individual is seriously ill and has been medically advised by a doctor and a rabbi to eat on Yom Kippur, but they choose not to consume food, asserting, "I am observing the commandment of fasting," and as a result, they succumb to the illness, they bear responsibility for their own life. Contrary to this, if there is only a potential danger that could arise, there is a possibility in certain situations to say "Shomer Petaim."
Therefore, according to this approach we need to evaluate the situation before us, considering whether the danger is imminent or remote. The current situation in Israel does not pose an imminent and certain danger (and hopefully, things will improve), but at most, it is a doubt.
On the contrary, driving through an Arab village poses a real and existing threat, which one must avoid by halachic means. Therefore, an example would be a reporter who walks into such a village, violating this prohibition.

Distinction between Danger for Most and Danger for Few:
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (חו״מ ח״ב סימן עו) offers a bit different approach; he emphasizes a distinction between activities that pose danger to the majority, warranting caution and refraining, and those where most individuals are safe. In instances where the majority remains unaffected, the approach of "Shomer Petaim" (relying on the presumption of safety) can be taken. For instance, consuming fatty meat or very spicy foods may be harmful to some but not to most; in such cases, one may eat and trust that they will be safe. Conversely, engaging in activities that are generally harmful, such as a diabetic consuming sugary item, should be avoided. Since such actions are dangerous for the majority with that condition, one cannot rely on the assumption that all will be fine.
Accordingly, one needs to assess whether traveling to Israel is safe for the majority, and the answer is affirmative. The majority of people in Israel are safe.
We still need to inquire about the leniency applied in places where the risk level is low. Normally, we adhere to the principle of "safek nefashot lekula," meaning that even if the danger is low, we must take all necessary precautions and even violate the Sabbath in a scenario where there might be a risk, even if it's low.
Rav Elchanan Wasserman (קובץ שיעורים, כתובות קלו) asserts that the principle of "safek nefashot lekula" does not apply to one's normal way of life. This means that one may continue living normally without changing the course of life even if there is a minor risk involved. However, if the risk becomes visible and real, precautions must be taken in any event.
Rav Elchanan Wasserman explains that one may go about his life without excessive worry, relying on Hashem to protect him. Any action that is part of our daily routine doesn't need to be stopped unless there is a sudden imminent danger. However, when we want to do something out of the norm, that is when one needs to assess the risk.
To comprehend this, it's crucial to acknowledge that virtually every action in life involves some level of risk. For instance, driving has the potential for accidents, walking in the street may expose us to potential attacks, and even staying in a building carries the risk of it collapsing. Nevertheless, we do not live in constant fear because we recognize that Hashem controls the world, and if harm befalls us, it is by His decree. However, this understanding does not grant permission to deliberately enter dangerous places, relying solely on the belief that Hashem will save us. In such instances, it is considered tempting fate, as it implies letting nature take its course, potentially leading to harm.
Summarizing the above, it appears permissible to travel to Israel when people are leading a normal way of life without excessive worry about potential danger. However, this does not grant permission to walk through placed which aren’t as safe, such as Arab quarters in Jerusalem or visit Hebron, where the danger is greater.
Another aspect worth noting is the unclear safety comparison between being in cities like New York, where there are Arabs in every corner, and Israel. In such cases, moving from one potentially dangerous area to another may not significantly alter the level of risk.