Israeli soldiers enforce curfew on the West Bank city of Hebron. (Mamoun Wazwaz, Maan Images)

Is the discourse we are conducting - if indeed we are conducting any discourse among ourselves and with our interlocutor - legitimate at all? Ever since the territories were occupied a public debate has been going on here about their future and what is being done there. The questions have come and gone, all of them in the same cursed vein: To give? To concede? Under what conditions? In exchange for what? The settlements - yes or no; the roadblocks - yes or no; the assassinations, the arrests, the starving, the closure, the encirclement, the curfew, the exposure, the torture, the freedom of movement, the choice or the ritual - yes or no.

An excellent example was provided this week by Jerusalem police chief Aharon Franco, who said that the city's Muslims were "ungrateful." For what? We gave them - here we have that word "gave" again - permission to pray at the Temple Mount and they replied with violence.

	Related Stories
	Ten facts about the Nakba Middle East peace will come through recognizing injustice Goldstone report is not to be ignored Two states or apartheid? The continuing Nakba

Indeed, we do not have any moral right to conduct this discussion. First of all, it's a lie that we have given the Muslims permission to worship - only men over 50. But more importantly, who are we to "give" them rights to which they are entitled in a way that is taken for granted in every democracy? Is it imaginable that we would prevent young Jews from going to the Western Wall? Can Palestinians, too, dream of holding a "Jerusalem March" of their own? Defense Minister Ehud Barak and his spokesmen are boasting of having taken down a number of roadblocks, and the deputy director general in charge of frequencies at the Communications Ministry is considering whether to "give" the Palestinians a second mobile telephone network after the government has piled up conditions - Goldstone in exchange for Wataniya, the cellular phone operator.

Where does this right come from? Just as a rapist does not have the right to discuss carrying out his nefarious scheme, and the robber cannot haggle over the conditions under which he will return his loot, the occupier, the taskmaster, the jack-booted soldier and the exploiter cannot discuss the conditions under which they will carry out their deeds. This is a blatantly immoral discussion.

To read the full article please visit Haaretz.