# Ethics of Israeli settlements **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 17, 2010, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116 "2010-09-17T19:15:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116/181 "2010-09-20T20:16:26Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > > [@Malthus](#): > > > > Israel will never, in my opinion, relinquish control over its capital city, regardless of the settlers’ existance or not, and IMO it is unreasonable to expect it to. Therefore, being a “settler” in that particular location is not standing in the way of a peace settlement. > > You’re omitting any mention of the views of the other side that would have to agree for it constitute either peace or a settlement. You cannot have a negotiation, in any situation anywhere, that starts with anything being unilaterally declared non-negotiable. Doesn’t work. That’s not true. Each side going into a negotiation will have points that they’re willing to give up or modify and points they’re not willing to give up or modify. Each side will come in with certain non-negotiable demands, and the indivisibility of Jerusalem is one for the Israelis. Now, if ownership of East Jerusalem is also a non-negotiable demand for the Palestinians, then there won’t ever be a treaty. If it isn’t, there very well could be. So, **Malthus** is right, Israelis moving into East Jerusalem won’t scuttle the peace treaty. Israel maintaining ownership of East Jerusalem might. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116/182 "2010-09-20T20:25:34Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > > > You’re omitting any mention of the views of the other side that would have to agree for it constitute either peace or a settlement. You cannot have a negotiation, in any situation anywhere, that starts with anything being unilaterally declared non-negotiable. Doesn’t work. > > That’s not true. Really? > [@](#): > > Now, if ownership of East Jerusalem is also a non-negotiable demand for the Palestinians, then there won’t ever be a treaty. There you go. Perhaps you’ve heard of the Dome of the Rock? Why do you even ask? And that’s where there has to be enough determination to reach an agreement that the negotiators can be more creative than simply drawing a line. Impasses have to be gone around if they cannot be resolved. No, that’s not easy, but it’s possible if both sides are sincere about wanting it. Saying “Mineminemine, you can’t have it” is an automatic fail, but saying “We’re always going to be neighbors, let’s see if we can address each others’ underlying interests so we can live together peacefully” does. Each side’s claim is based on the presence of holy sites of each’s dominant religion, no? If arrangements for full access and full mutual respect for those sites can be assured by a treaty, can that be the basis for resolving the Jerusalem impasse and creating a true two-state solution? Now where is the evidence of anybody wanting to work something out in good faith? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116/183 "2010-09-20T20:25:37Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, I can picture settlements and suicide bombings being bargaining chips. Israel allows settlers to demonstrate their willingness to just take land as it suits them, while Palestinians send in suicide bombers to demonstrate willingness to kill Israelis as it suits them, the idea being that if you’re not threatening the other side in some fashion, you have no power. This sort of cynical positional bargaining is part of what pisses people off. Some people feel taht Israel is deliberately creating settlements for advantage in future negotiations. As a claim on territory that can be used to extract more favorable borders in an eventual resolution. I do not ge the impression that the suicide bombers don’t seem like a Palestinian strategy to try to obtain a better bargaining position. > [@](#): > > Thing is, I can picture Israel dragging the settlers back into Israel, even against the settlers’ wishes (it’s happened a few times, after all), thus demonstrating that they can, under some circumstances, trade away this bargaining chip. I’m rather curious if anyone in authority in Palestine has demonstrated comparable willingness by arresting and punishing those who facilitate suicide bombings. I think its probably a lot easier to demolish buildings than to stop terrorist activity. I don’t know that Abbas has the ABILITY never mind the willingness to stop terrorism in the absence of a compromise that is generally acceptable to the palestinian population and as time goes by and the offenses stack up, the price of compromise goes up as well. > [@](#): > > Heh, and being a bit cynical, I can even imagine Israel offering the right of return to people who were born in what is now Israel prior to 1948. The youngest of them would be in their sixties, after all, well beyond typical childbearing years. If you were born outside of current Israeli borders - tough. Why would descendants have any such claim, anyway? Because they would have been born in Israel but for that fact. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116/184 "2010-09-20T20:28:19Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Of course you can have a negotiation where certain things are declared non-negotiable. Not one that results in a durable peace. > [@](#): > > The other side may make you pay for that, of course, by increasing their demands in other areas - but the Palestinians are starting out with a lousy hand, and one that is getting worse and not better over time. It’s all their fault, isn’t it? All of it. Every time. Tsk, tsk. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116/185 "2010-09-20T20:35:12Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > > > That’s not true. > > Really? > > > [@](#): > > > > Now, if ownership of East Jerusalem is also a non-negotiable demand for the Palestinians, then there won’t ever be a treaty. > > There you go. Perhaps you’ve heard of the Dome of the Rock? Why do you even ask? > > And that’s where there has to be enough determination to reach an agreement that the negotiators can be more creative than simply drawing a line. Impasses have to be gone around if they cannot be resolved. No, that’s not easy, but it’s possible if both sides are sincere about wanting it. > > Saying “Mineminemine, you can’t have it” is an automatic fail, but saying “We’re always going to be neighbors, let’s see if we can address each others’ underlying interests so we can live together peacefully” does. Each side’s claim is based on the presence of holy sites of each’s dominant religion, no? If arrangements for full access and full mutual respect for those sites can be assured by a treaty, can that be the basis for resolving the Jerusalem impasse and creating a true two-state solution? > > Now where is the evidence of anybody wanting to work something out in good faith? Interesting that you mention the Dome of the Rock - it is, in point of fact, not under Israeli authority: none of the Muslim holy places in Jerusalem are. The conflict there is between Jordanian and Palestinian control, not Israel and Palestinian control. The Israelis gave up control over the Dome right after they took in in '67 (non-Muslims are not allowed to pray there, actually). [http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=6](http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=6) > [@](#): > > The Muslim community is divided as well, in that both Jordan and the Palestinian Authority ¶ claim authority over the holy places. Jordan has said it will relinquish custodianship of the holy sites to the appropriate authority when the “final status” of the city is determined in negotiations, but King Hussein has made known that he envisions a long-term role for the Hashemites in the holy places, going so far as to suggest that the sites should be “above the sovereign considerations of any state.” Thus Jordan continues to pay the salaries of religious functionaries in Jerusalem and has paid for renovations to al-Aqsa, although it cut its funding for West Bank religious institutions in 1994. The PA at that time created and began funding its own waqf bureaucracy, leading to the odd situation in which Jerusalem has two different waqf administrations, one Palestinian and one Jordanian. Practically speaking, this has not caused problems, as the PA minister of waqf and religious affairs, who is also the Supreme Muslim Council president, is Shaykh Hassan Tahboub, formerly a Jordanian waqf official. In other areas tensions have arisen, however: The PA and Jordan have each appointed different (and competing) directors of the al-Aqsa mosque. Does this change your opinion any? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116/186 "2010-09-20T20:35:42Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > And don’t give me the BS about how Jews were treated well in the middle east until Israel was founded. They were treated slightly better than they were in Europe–which is like saying if you shoot eight cows out of ten, you’re treating them better than if you shot nine of them Jews weren’t just treated "slightly better’ than they were treated in Europe. Remember the Ottoman genocide of Armenians? Well there was a long list of people the Ottomans genocided, Jews were one of the few minorities NOT on that list. Besides are you saying that tehre are no safe harbors for Jews in this world if not for Israel? With all that said, I think the Jewish desire for a nation is understandable and as much as i think Israel was a bad place to put it, I don’t see how it wouldn’t be an even greater disaster to change that today. BUT, the fanatic obession with “keep Israel Jewish” to the point where Israel engages in some really despicable behaviour is not something that needs to continue. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116/187 "2010-09-20T20:37:28Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Each side’s claim is based on the presence of holy sites of each’s dominant religion, no? If arrangements for full access and full mutual respect for those sites can be assured by a treaty, can that be the basis for resolving the Jerusalem impasse and creating a true two-state solution? No. Israel’s claim to East Jerusalem is based on Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, that Jerusalem has historically been a Jewish city and that it doesn’t make sense for the city to be divided between two countries. The Palestinian claim to East Jerusalem is based on the fact that East Jerusalem is behind the Green Line, that Israel didn’t have any control over it until the '67 War when they conquered it along with the rest of the West Bank, and that East Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state. Negotiation over control of the holy places and full access to religious sites is, by comparison, really easy to negotiate, and both the Israeli and Palestinian sides will be perfectly willing to negotiate those, I have no doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116/188 "2010-09-20T20:38:18Z")
> [@shamblesmaybe](#): > > > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > > > Well, in 2003, after some Palestinians with Israeli identity cards were involved in terrorism, the Knesset passed the “The Nationality and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) 5763-2003”, which basically did what you said…forbade Palestinians married to Israelis from getting Israeli visas. > > I’m confused, perhaps you can help me out here. > > Firstly if ‘some’ Palestinians are involved in terrorism out of a population of millions how does that justify a policy that effects all Palestinians living in Israel? Wouldn’t that be called descrimination any where else? Wouldn’t that be group punishment? > > The population of Israel is made up from more than one group, so in an equal society why would an Arab need to marry a Jew to gain an identity card? > > What if a Palestinian living within Israel wanted to marry one living in Gaza would they be allowed to live to Israel? They could not naturalize but they could live in israel. But their children would have to leave when they reached 16. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116/189 "2010-09-20T20:38:23Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Not one that results in a durable peace. Disagree. Not everything has to be open for negotiation. No negotiations in the world I’ve ever seen take place without either side having certain positions they simply will not agree to. > [@](#): > > It’s all their fault, isn’t it? All of it. Every time. Tsk, tsk. Where are you getting this from? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116/190 "2010-09-20T20:41:55Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Does this change your opinion any? Should it? Is that an interesting technicality or a basic issue? We are discussing, or should be, what both nations perceive their fundamental interests to be, and what could be the nature of an agreement that would make both nations accept that their interests are satisfied. Or are you really saying that Palestinians don’t consider Al Aqsa part of their homeland (it doesn’t matter whether or not you think they _should_, btw)? Now where is the evidence of that willingness? Who could be this generation’s Begin? Can a new Sadat arise in the conditions Israel has imposed upon Palestine? Where is YOUR willingness to explore how something could be worked out rather than to merely throw out objections, for that matter? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116/191 "2010-09-20T20:42:24Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > > > Each side’s claim is based on the presence of holy sites of each’s dominant religion, no? If arrangements for full access and full mutual respect for those sites can be assured by a treaty, can that be the basis for resolving the Jerusalem impasse and creating a true two-state solution? > > No. Israel’s claim to East Jerusalem is based on Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, that Jerusalem has historically been a Jewish city and that it doesn’t make sense for the city to be divided between two countries. The Palestinian claim to East Jerusalem is based on the fact that East Jerusalem is behind the Green Line, that Israel didn’t have any control over it until the '67 War when they conquered it along with the rest of the West Bank, and that East Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state. > > Negotiation over control of the holy places and full access to religious sites is, by comparison, really easy to negotiate, and both the Israeli and Palestinian sides will be perfectly willing to negotiate those, I have no doubt. Indeed, as pointed out above, there is nothing to negotiate - the Muslim holy sites are already under exclusive Muslim control. The debate has nothing whatever to do with “holy sites”. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116/192 "2010-09-20T20:43:06Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Where are you getting this from? :rolleyes: From your excuse-making. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116/193 "2010-09-20T20:44:01Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Heh, and being a bit cynical, I can even imagine Israel offering the right of return to people who were born in what is now Israel prior to 1948. The youngest of them would be in their sixties, after all, well beyond typical childbearing years. If you were born outside of current Israeli borders - tough. Why would descendants have any such claim, anyway? > > Because they would have been born in Israel but for that fact. Well, if my Grandpa had invested heavily in IBM in 1945, I’d’a been born a multimillionaire. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116/194 "2010-09-20T20:47:21Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > [@Babale](#): > > > > And don’t give me the BS about how Jews were treated well in the middle east until Israel was founded. They were treated slightly better than they were in Europe–which is like saying if you shoot eight cows out of ten, you’re treating them better than if you shot nine of them > > Jews weren’t just treated "slightly better’ than they were treated in Europe. Remember the Ottoman genocide of Armenians? Well there was a long list of people the Ottomans genocided, Jews were one of the few minorities NOT on that list. That’s an exaggeration. There were expulsions and massacres of Jews by the Ottomans, and if you extend the question to the middle east or Arab world generally, there certainly was a good deal of persecution against Jews. There was violence against Jews even in Mandate Palestine before Israel was founded. Most famously, in 1929, in addition to riots elsewhere, almost the entire Jewish population of Hebron was killed, with the survivors evacuated elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116/195 "2010-09-20T20:48:23Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > > Its not as pronounced or severe as it was in South Africa, Serbia or the Mongol Empire but its hard to argue that there isn’t legal and institutional discrimination against Palestinians. > > > > For examples laws like: [Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_and_Entry_into_Israel_Law) > > > > seem discriminatory. > > > > My understanding is that Israeli arabs are second class citizens. > > Of course there’s discrimination against Palestinians, but how are Israeli Arabs “second class citizens”? google [Google Search](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=israeli+arab+second+class+citizen&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=) ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116/196 "2010-09-20T20:48:34Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > > [@Malthus](#): > > > > Does this change your opinion any? > > Should it? Is that an interesting technicality or a basic issue? We are discussing, or should be, what both nations perceive their fundamental interests to be, and what could be the nature of an agreement that would make both nations accept that their interests are satisfied. Or are you really saying that Palestinians don’t consider Al Aqsa part of their homeland (it doesn’t matter whether or not you think they _should_, btw)? > > Now where is the evidence of that willingness? Who could be this generation’s Begin? Can a new Sadat arise in the conditions Israel has imposed upon Palestine? > > Where is YOUR willingness to explore how something could be worked out rather than to merely throw out objections, for that matter? Well, in the ideal world, learning a new set of facts that completely undermines what you’ve been arguing ought to change your opinion. You said: > [@](#): > > Saying “Mineminemine, you can’t have it” is an automatic fail, but saying “We’re always going to be neighbors, let’s see if we can address each others’ underlying interests so we can live together peacefully” does. Each side’s claim is based on the presence of holy sites of each’s dominant religion, no? If arrangements for full access and full mutual respect for those sites can be assured by a treaty, can that be the basis for resolving the Jerusalem impasse and creating a true two-state solution? > > Now where is the evidence of anybody wanting to work something out in good faith? I provided the exact “evidence” you requested: in point of fact, Israel had handed over control of the holy sites in 1967. Acccording to you, that sort of “arrangement for full access and full mutual respect for those sites” would, presumably, be “evidence” of Israel “wanting to work something out in good faith”. Which, one would assume, ought to affect your opinion of the conflict, no? Unless you are simply impervious to facts. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116/197 "2010-09-20T20:49:39Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > > [@Malthus](#): > > > > Where are you getting this from? :rolleyes: > > From your excuse-making. In short, from your imagination. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116/198 "2010-09-20T20:51:23Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > > > Of course there’s discrimination against Palestinians, but how are Israeli Arabs “second class citizens”? > > google [Google Search](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=israeli+arab+second+class+citizen&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=) Google-bombing does not an argument make. > **[Google Search](http://www.google.ca/search?q=jews%2Bcontrol%2Bthe%2Bworld&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&redir_esc=&ei=MsmXTK7eKsT38Abj98mMDA)** ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116/199 "2010-09-20T20:51:24Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > > Because they would have been born in Israel but for that fact. > > Well, if my Grandpa had invested heavily in IBM in 1945, I’d’a been born a multimillionaire. If your grandfather invested ehavily in IBM and then had his shares taken by the government then I would say that you shoulda been born a millionaire. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116/200 "2010-09-20T20:57:07Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > > > Of course there’s discrimination against Palestinians, but how are Israeli Arabs “second class citizens”? > > google [Google Search](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=israeli+arab+second+class+citizen&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=) Right. Could you actually tell me why you think Israeli Arabs are second class citizens instead of just giving me a google link? Other than the army stuff, which we’ve discussed, what rights don’t Arab Israelis have Israeli Non Arabs have that you think Israeli Arabs should have. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-israeli-settlements/554116.md?page=11)