Talking under the general title ?an alternative vision for peace? may be very presumptuous and quite arrogant. I doubt whether we can or should attempt to reinvent the wheel in this case. What we need is to gather and relocate the principal agenda on which an international solidarity movement rests and make it more efficient and more instrumental in the struggle against the Occupation.

This agenda, for my mind, should be founded on several assumptions, none of which are categorical or closed for further discussion and debate; yet most of them lie at the centre of political vision uniting all of us who wish to promote internationalism in the service of resolving this region?s difficulties. The first assumption is that the ?struggle from within? should be the compass for the whole international effort to end the Occupation. In saying that, international solidarity must not mean intervention in the domestic politics and agenda of Palestine. On the other hand, a struggle dominated by purely ?statist? principles would promote xenophobic, introspective, anti-internationalist and anti-humanist groups, and it would weaken the international dimension of the struggle.

The balancing between ?internationalism? and ?parochialism? is crucial given the local, regional and international balances of power. The recent regional constellation of military and political power and the dominant political orientation of Israeli politics have fused together to create a formidable force that favours the occupier and disadvantages the occupied. The Zionist state, with the blessing of the unholy alliance that determines United States (US) policy ? the neo-conservatives, the Christian Zionists and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) ? are well placed to wreak even more destruction, ethnic cleansing and genocide in the future.

My second assumption is that there is a need for an increased recognition of the importance of the international dimension from the Israeli left ? particularly in the framework of anti-Americanism, anti-globalisation and European political challenge to US hegemony. However, the anti- Occupation movement within Israel ? of which our hosts today, the Alternative Information Center (AIC), are a very important factor in its inception and potential expansion ? seems to have shrunk following the outbreak of the second Intifada. Some observers would say that despite the shrinkage of the Israeli left, it has nonetheless become a more coherent protest movement, in purpose if not in structure. Though there may be some truth in this, the dismal conditions on the ground and the diminutive size of the left in Israel mean that for the sake of securing the urgent task of ending the Occupation, the Israeli left needs empowerment from the outside. While the left maintains its long-term educational project of impacting Jewish public opinion with the hope of transforming Israel?s views on the Occupation, anyone who knows the Jewish Israeli mentality well would agree that it will take more than such educational efforts to change Israel?s basic positions on the conflict and the fate of the Occupied Territories.

The mutual need of both Israelis and Palestinians to boost the international dimension of their struggle needs to be translated into a joint demand from the progressive international community. While minimising harm to the more deprived sectors of society, together we must pressure the state of Israel to make its leaders (and its wealthy citizens) pay the price for one of the world?s most brutal occupations.

It is our task to provide constant moral justification for making the state of Israel a pariah state as long as the Occupation lasts. While this task may be easier for Palestinians than it is for Israelis, it must be undertaken together. How best to achieve all our goals must be defined through Palestinian mechanisms while consulting with the radical Israeli left. At the same time, together we must postulate a more long-term agenda comprised of four main elements. First, there is a need to open up the debate about the one-state/two-state solutions. Finding the golden balance between recognition that the two-state solution is the best way to end the Occupation and that the one-state settlement is the best means of ending the conflict.

Second, we should work together on US public opinion ? and through that on Jewish public opinion in Israel ? on relocating the refugee issue at the  centre of the future peace agenda. This must be done according to an agreed procedure: recognising that the right of return itself is not negotiable; that democratisation is not an American term but a universal principle which means in this case asking the refugees themselves, through parliamentary and civic structures, to voice their position on the issue. When the sanctity of this right is guaranteed and the democratic position of the refugees is clarified, final negotiations on the practicalities of a solution can start.

Third, there is a need to debunk the Israeli insistence that the future of the Palestinian minority in Israel is a ?domestic issue?. We should ask for incorporation of their needs and fate in the peace agenda. Finally, let us be aware that the European nature of the international struggle is not meant to Europeanise Israel. On the contrary, it should help in turning Israel from an Orientalist state into a Middle Eastern one. This means a renewed and fresh effort to win the support of the Arab Jews in Israel through international communities not represented here today: the Arab world, the Arab Americans and the Arab communities in Europe.

In short, we need to strengthen the joint effort to disseminate the formula that provides that the end of the Occupation is the precondition for peace, not peace itself. Let us think about the possible implications of this formula: it helps not only to prioritise our actions ? the end of Israeli Occupation being an urgent goal and the end of the conflict a more longterm objective ? but also to better define the tactics used to achieve those objectives. We cannot tolerate another day of the Occupation and so we should legitimise the armed struggle against it. At the same time we should also recognise that in the long term, nonviolent means are needed to end the conflict.

Let us end the 1967 Occupation without forgetting either the ethnic cleansing of 1948 or the fact that Israel has not been made accountable to this very day for its war crimes in 1948, nor those it has committed since.

If we can achieve even some of what we have set out to do, we would have made the first steps towards realising the agendas of all the oppressed people living in this country ? women?s rights, ecology, human economy and the well being of everybody living or returning home to live between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.