When you say <"How many people in New London are facing being blown up every day? "> You clearly demonstrate your inability to focus on the examination of a concept and devolve into some sort of emotional response.

At issue here is the problem of defining the "good" and what is, and is not "public use" and if these concepts are the same thing, or do they differ one from the other? As you put it, are they "apples and fishes?"

Clearly the settlement people are home owners, the settlements are over 20 years old, they have raised their families, have community ties and all the amenities of ownership are being ripped away from them by their duly elected government who has offered to pay them $ 300,000. for evacuating their homes by a deadline imposed. If you will consider the money offered as just compensation then you are looking at a good example of the power of eminent domain.

Excess emotion aside, the emnity of religious conflict aside, the parallel with Kelo v. City of New London is exists. And, to be logically consistent if you agreed with Leto you must favor removal from the settlement. If you opposed Leto you must favor the settlers resisting their expulsion.

The Israeli government is expelling the settlers for the use and benefit of the Palestinian population (private users) for the hoped for benefit of bringing peace to the area sometime in the future (public benefit -NOT public use).

These are the elements of concept that should be addressed by these boards in this case. Old story here, you can't have it both ways.

Publius