Israeli settlers have made many arguments against Ariel Sharon's plan to withdraw a from the Gaza strip.
I've heard their theological arguments1 their political arguments 2 and their sentimental arguments.3
Now I am wondering: do the settlers have a legal argument4, too?
----------
a I'm not picky. Sub in a euphomism for withdrawal if that makes you smile: You can say "disengagement" or "relocation," for example.
1 The theological arguments:
(a) God won't know we love him if we give up one inch of the land that lies adjacent to David's former kingdom.
(b) The Messiah won't come before we've re-conquered every inch of the land that lies adjacent to David's former kingdom. He's a prima donna, that Messiah.
(c) The era of peaceful prosperity we've long-awaited won't begin until David's former kingdom and the land lying adjacent to it has been made free of Arabs.
(d) God gave it to us. So there. Phhhhbtt.
2 The political arguments:
(a) If we make concessions, the Arab's will become more violent.
(b) Retreat = defeat
(c) Maximum borders are our best, and some would say only, protection
3 The sentimental arguments
(a) I was born here, raised here, kissed my first girl here, or whatever, and therefore I can't possibly permit myself to be separated from this land.
(b) I feel very strongly that God wants me here. So there. Phbbbbt.
(c) Our fathers fought, and sometimes died for this land. So there. Phbbbt.
4 Legal arguments
I know beans about Israeli law, but in America we have something called eminent domain. This is government's right to appropriate private property for public use, with compensation to the owner, as required by the Fifth Amendment. If the government has decided that it is in Israel's best interest to put the Gaza Strip to another use, and is willing to pay the owners a fair price, isn't that eminent domain? Does Israeli law recognize this concept? If so, what is the counter-argument?