Sanity, reason and moral responsibility are the genuine building blocks of peace, says Hanan Ashrawi.

The Sydney Peace Foundation has taken the difficult decision to make a difference, to stand up for justice and the pursuit of peace, and to intervene as a positive force in the resolution of global conflicts. I view this peace prize as a recognition of all those who have maintained an unwavering commitment to a just resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, who have defied the prevailing dynamic of violence and the mutual infliction of pain and delegitimisation, and who continue to provide hope in the midst of despair on both sides of the "divide".

The Sydney Peace Foundation has chosen courageously to take sides in the struggle against injustice as opposed to the refuge of so-called neutrality or the self-interest of power. It has refused to be deflected, intimidated, or silenced, exercising a tenacity and determination that are the rare attributes of moral leadership and genuine service.

It is precisely during such times of adversity and pain, of violence and victimisation, of unilateralism and militarism, of ideological fundamentalism and absolutist exclusivity, that the world is most in need of voices and forces of sanity, reason and moral responsibility - the genuine building blocks of peace.

As we witness attempts at imposing a simplistic view of a Manichean universe, of polarisation and reductive stereotypes of good and evil, we are most in need of those who will engage in a redemptive validation of pluralism, tolerance, diversity, authenticity of identity, and the comprehensive engagement in collective responsibility. It is up to us jointly to give both a voice and an audience to the silenced, and to grant space and time to the excluded and denied.

Globally, the Palestinian question remains central to any human vision of globalisation as a test of the collective will to intervene and to maintain a global rule of law based on operative principles of justice and historical redemption. Granted, the current dynamic is antithetical to the aspirations of peacemakers who had based their endeavours on the universality of human rights, parity before the law, positive intervention, and the non-violent resolution of conflicts through redress and the elimination of grievances. A serious paradigm shift is necessary for the restoration of these human values that have been subverted in the aftermath of September 11 and the triumph of the neoconservatives and fundamentalist ideologues in key power centres.

The notion that a whole nation can be brought to its knees by the use of unbridled violence, or that the will of a people can be defeated by military means, must be discarded once and for all. Armies may be able to defeat other armies, but the limits of power are most apparent when used against civilians and non-combatants. Along with that, the fallacy that there is or can be a military solution to the conflict must be completely and irrevocably discarded.

Conversely, the emergence of the bizarre concept of a "balance of terror" has reinforced the irrational and immoral killing of civilians and the victimisation of the innocent. The drive for revenge, like the escalation of military brutality, has generated the most tragic and futile momentum for escalation and self-destruction.

On both sides, the "no holds barred" mindset has taken over as a mindless, visceral, repetitive response with horrific ramifications. The erroneous assumption that greater pain and punishment, or the escalation of failed measures, would somehow lead to "success" or the surrender of one side to the other is at the heart of the prevailing dynamic of death and devastation.

The denial or distortion of the narrative of the other has served as a convenient vehicle for the dehumanisation of the adversary and hence as a justification for all forms of violations and atrocities while evading accountability. Historical records must be reconciled, whether in the recognition of the horror of the Holocaust and all its horrendous implications, or in the historical victimisation of the Palestinian people and their dual tragedy of dispossession and exile, on the one hand, and oppression and occupation on the other.

It should also become apparent that, ironically, in this context the Palestinians and Israelis have reached the stage of dependent legitimacies rather than a competition over a singular and mutually exclusive legitimacy.

Since the essential requirement for peace lies in sharing the land of historical Palestine, it follows that there has to be a shared legitimacy based on parity and mutuality. Neither side can (or should be allowed to) destroy the other physically, morally, or legally. A full admission of equal value to human lives and rights must be internalised, with no claims to superiority on those most essential human values and attributes.

The most detrimental external interference is that of the zealots and enthusiasts who embrace the most extreme long-distance stances with the "passionate intensity" of the "worst". Blind loyalty for, and identification with, one side lead to the adoption of the most strident belligerency towards the other, hence intensifying the conflict and subverting dialogue and rational communication. Islamic fundamentalists and regressive brands of Arab nationalists have ironically joined forces with Christian evangelicals, Jewish fundamentalists, and ideological neoconservatives to fight their own proxy wars at the expense of moderate Palestinians and Israelis alike. Such radical apologists have inflicted serious damage and pain from their safe distance in Riyadh, Damascus, Washington, Knoxville, or Sydney demonstrating the type of intervention that no peace can survive. They also reinforce the worst misconceptions and fallacies by totally eradicating the legitimacy of one side, thereby justifying the false claims of the other that there is no peace partner, hence no peace option.

The superimposition of blind loyalty or guilt has revived the worst of racist labelling and dehumanisation with the additional superimposition of false analogies. It may be convenient to label all Palestinians as "terrorists" and dismiss them from the conscience of the world in the context of the "war on terrorism". It may be equally convenient to describe the Israeli occupation's measures of aerial bombardment and shelling of Palestinian civilian areas, of assassinations and abduction, of home demolition and destruction of crops, of siege and fragmentation, of checkpoints and humiliation, of illegal settlements and apartheid walls and annexation fences as legitimate forms of "self-defence".

It may be comfortable to dismiss decades of military occupation and dispossession as figments of the victim's imagination, hence irrelevant to the current conflict. However, such scoring of points only makes the solution all that more distant.

So far, the solution remains simple and attainable, having been repeatedly defined and having become part of a global consensus. The two-state solution is still possible, though becoming increasingly more difficult with the expansion of settlements, bypass roads, and the apartheid wall throughout Palestinian territory.

The bi-national state as a de facto solution will become the only option should Israel continue its expansion and its refusal to withdraw to the 1967 lines and remove the settlements from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Territoriality will give way to demography, and the issue then will become one of democracy, with Zionism forced to re-examine its most basic premises.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel, but there is a need for the will and courage to act against all adverse forces.

This is an edited extract from Palestinian spokeswoman Dr Hanan Ashrawi's Sydney Peace Prize lecture, delivered last night.