Thank you for your comment. However, my point wasn’t Eretz Yisroel but rather the implication of that part of the video in which Rabbi Shmotkin is explaining by way of an example, if a thief enters a business on Shabbos one would be able to defend it. This is incorrect as mentioned above.

You brought Orach Chaim 329 :6-7
This is Halacha 7 – there is no implication here, it is straight out in the Halacha and in the presentation – the presentation is about the Halacha of a bordering town scenario.
And the presentation also conveys why the entire Eretz Yisroel goes into the category of a bordering town in regards to this Halacha.

According to halacha, Shabbos is not to be violated to protect property alone. The Shulchan Oruch rules clearly:

“אין מחללין את השבת על ממון בלבד” (O.C. 329:6)
One does not desecrate Shabbos for monetary loss alone.

Therefore, if a thief enters a business on Shabbos and it is clear that no people are present and there is no realistic danger to life, one may not fight the thief or perform melacha in order to protect the business. Financial loss, even significant loss, does not override Shabbos.

This is fundamentally different from the case discussed by Chazal of enemies approaching a border town, even if they claim they are coming only for “straw and hay.” In that situation, the Shulchan Oruch rules that one does desecrate Shabbos and go out armed (O.C. 329:6–7).

The reason is not the value of the straw and hay, but the security threat inherent in allowing hostile forces to enter a border area. Granting them access creates a foothold, weakens defences, and presents a realistic risk of future violence. Chazal therefore classify this as pikuach nefesh, even if the immediate demand appears minor.