The purpose of the study is to explore, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the influence of framing a decision task as inclusion or exclusion on Israeli Jewish respondents' support for the concession of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Respondents received a list of 40 Jewish settlements. Details such as the number of residents and geographical location were provided for each settlement. The respondents were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the inclusion condition, 55 respondents were asked to mark the settlements for which they recommended that Israeli sovereignty be conceded. In the exclusion condition, 53 respondents were asked to mark the settlements for which they recommended that Israeli sovereignty not be conceded. The findings confirm the predictions tested and indicate that: (1) Framing the task in terms of inclusion or exclusion affects respondents' support for territorial compromise, so that respondents in the exclusion condition support the concession of more settlements than respondents in the inclusion condition. (2) Framing the task in terms of inclusion or exclusion has a greater effect on support for conceding options (settlements) that are perceived as ambiguous (less consensual in the climate of opinion) in comparison to options (settlements) that are perceived as more clearcut (more consensual). The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.