The totally unconstructive game, 'What would the Rov have said?" is going into overtime and overdrive. The latest developments are described by Gil Student, in the wake of R. Aharon Lichtenstein's letter to Rav Avraham Schapira, and Rav Shalom Gold's reply thereto. Judging from his posting, and the comments it engendered, this issue is far from resolved. I have already offered my opinion on this issue, but I think there is room for a few more words.
R. Lichtenstein is not only the Rov's son-in-law, he's a Gadol ba-Torah in his own right. Therefore, his words must be read with great care and precision in their formulation must be assumed. I don't see that he anywhere declared that it was a mitzvah to give away parts of Eretz Yisrael. He only stated that it was a legitimate legal possibility (which is what the Rav said, in the first place). Citing the Rav in that context is perfectly appropriate, because R. Avraham Schapira's position on the question of refusal to fulfill orders is grounded on the axiological position that it is forbidden to do so under any circumstances (based on Lo Tehanem). R. Lichtenstein, based upon the question of Piqquah Nefesh, is raising the point that saving lives is not just measured by the nature of the enemy, but by the capacity of the army to fight and to serve as a deterrent. Many people who virulently opposed leaving Gaza, opposed insubordination on the same grounds.
I do not see that R. Lichtenstein was presuming to present a 'What would the Rav have said if he were alive?' I think it is unfair to accuse him of doing so. He engaged in an halakhic debate on the question of refusing orders. In that context he cited the Rov, as a enunciating a shitta ba-Halakhah. Such opinons are time transcending. Application, of course, is another thing. That's the hardest part of Halakhic decising (See Iggerot Hazon Ish, I, no. 37). It is, however, a matter for the living.