Eminent Domain, no, it's not

During the pro-anti-Disengagement arguments, some of those in favor used the concept of Eminent domain to bolster their point.

Eminent domain means:

Governments most commonly use the power of eminent domain when the acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of a public project such as a road, and the owner of the required property is unwilling to negotiate a price for its sale. In many jurisdictions the power of eminent domain is tempered with a right that just compensation be made for the appropriation.

That wasn't Disengagement. None of the purposes a government normally has for the land confiscated, or should I say: "None of the purposes a normal government has for the land confiscated" could be compared to what the Israeli Government did to the land and property it confiscated from the hard-working, loyal citizens who had been living in Gush Katif and the Northern Sinai.

I'd venture to say, that in the history of the world, and you can count day one from whenever you want, has another country done what Israel just did last summer and what Olmert and his Kadima buddies want to do again, to us.

I emphasized the word "another," since there was a country that did it before, Israel itself, when Menachem Begin gave Egypt the Sinai, destroying the young city of Yamit and various agricultural communities and more.

The rationale, justification for Eminent domain is that the land must be used for the benefit of the people, for education, community development, etc.

The principle of Eminent domain does not cover giving land won in a defensive war to terrorists whose aim is the destruction of the "giving" country.

I don't like writing long, repetitious articles. So I think I've made my point.

There's something very, very wrong in Israel.