Regarding Israel's expulsion of Jews from Gaza, we read one commenter (here) write,
...[O]nce the decision had been made to have the [I]sraeli army leave, you couldn't let people stay behind, as I am sure many of the people in [G]aza would have wanted to do. ... Israel can't withdraw and leave epople [sic; read: "people"] behind in a most dangerous situation.
Au contraire! Who gave the government of Israel the right to expel the Jews who lived there? If the government wishes to constrict itself, and physically withdraw the area of its political sovereignty and jurisdiction, then fine. But that would mean leaving the Jewish inhabitants right where they were all along, untouched. The government may relocate its jurisdiction, but the people themselves have a right to continue living where they already live.
After all, all political power is a matter of social contract. The government is created by a compact of willing citizens, and if the citizens decide to alter their compact and redraw the borders, then fine, but in the jurisdiction formerly but no longer under that compact - such as Gaza - the inhabitant are now in a state of nature, and have a right to form their own government. The Jews of Gaza had a human right to continue living where they were already living, and form their own sovereign government. The Israeli government, having withdrawn its jurisdiction from Gaza, no longer had any jurisdiction over the Jews of Gaza any more than over the gentiles of Gaza.
There is one caveat, however: being that the Jews of Gaza had already paid tax money to the Israeli government, to build an army and physical infrastructure not operating exclusively in Gaza, they would have a right to be reimbursed for all the tax money they had ever paid that had gone to build up infrastructure in areas not their own.
Were the Jews of Gaza asked? It's awfully arrogant for someone to decide that for their own good, they must be relocated. But were they themselves ever asked? Perhaps they would have preferred to be left alone! I believe C. S. Lewis put the matter well:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.