Obviously we are delighted that the idea has got some momentum behind it and people are talking about using this opportunity to put serious amounts of money into the economy in a way that would not only create jobs but would also have serious environmental benefits. The downside is that because everyone is now using this language it is very difficult to differentiate between what is a real green new deal and what is not.

Are there plans, then, to revisit the Green New Deal – in the light of everyone else having one now, to go back and review it and produce a real one, more radical than the original?

There are certainly discussions about that but then we are also trying to encourage more people to get involved. The original group of eight to ten of us are not experts in some areas. So, for example, we are working with other specialist organisations to develop groups around issues like transport and agriculture to produce a green new deal for these sectors. We have been talking to the Soil Association and Sustain about what a green new deal for agriculture would look like. We have been meeting with lots of other NGOs too because there is this sense that we want to mainstream this by getting people to look at the Green New Deal through the lens of their own sector or area.

My first impression on reading the Green New Deal was that it was written as a top-down governmental programme. I understand why that was, but it did seem to me that it could also have been written in a way to encourage people to do things locally in their own areas – similarly to how you describe these plans for sectors. I understand things are happening in some areas already on this front. Could we not use the Green New Deal as a way to build a grass-roots movement – hundreds of meetings round the country to generate local enthusiasm and innovation to pressure government?

Yes, you are absolutely right. I was in Norwich yesterday with the Green Party there launching their election manifesto, ‘A green new deal for Norwich’, about what the local authority could and should be doing. We have also been looking at the idea of local bonds, which local authorities could issue as a safe place to put money in these troubled times and whose funds could be used for local renovation programmes and economic activity. The returns might not be as high as in the heyday of the real casino capitalism but people would know that their money was benefiting everyone, local communities and sustainable projects.

How do you think this would link to the ‘transition towns’ movement?

The Green New Deal does have slightly more emphasis, I suppose, on how to get national and local government to help this process more by removing obstacles and roadblocks – EU trade rules, World Trade Organisation rules and so on – which will need governments and local government to be pressurising to remove them.

The transition movement, though, is one of the most inspiring movements around, with ordinary people just getting on and doing things without waiting for national or local government. And it helps create a space by showing that there are people out there willing to go further than politicians think they are. I passionately believe in that bottom-up process, like transition towns, but we do also need the top-down governmental approach, and of course the bottom-up pressure makes that top-down approach more possible anyway, so it is all related.

It is very rare that you have a moment in politics when ordinary people are more radical than the politicians – I think maybe the 1960s was the last time. You have people in the pub wanting to string up bankers while the politicians want to bail them out – it is extraordinary. Is there not a danger of us all self censoring and not being radical enough?

It is a wonderful opportunity in a sense and a huge responsibility on us all to use this moment well. If we had been told five years ago that this moment was going to happen, we would all have got very excited and started preparing for how best to use it. But because it happened so quickly and unexpectedly, I am worried that it won’t last forever. There will be a real movement to go back to business as usual and we might lose this extraordinary opportunity we have to change and reshape a whole range of things from the economic system to the whole way we organise society. We’ve got to seize that moment!

I had never imagined that sitting up until midnight on a freezing night in Hebron would teach me so much, but as I huddled round the brazier in a classroom-turned-polling station, watching the tellers tally up the votes on the blackboard, I felt I was enjoying a lesson in enthusiasm for democracy. For a few hours I almost forgot that the election was taken place under military occupation and that just yards away 450 Israeli settlers were guarded by 2000 soldiers – almost, but the reality came back as soon as we re-crossed the checkpoint into Israeli-controlled Jerusalem.

The Palestinians elected Mahmoud Abbas in a truly remarkable display of commitment to democracy under the most challenging of circumstances. With some polling arrangements kept under wraps until election day and some polling stations run by occupation soldiers it’s incredible that a relatively free and fair election could take place at all.

Perhaps the worst Israeli interference took place in East Jerusalem. Over a hundred thousand voters were forced to choose between voting outside the city – and risk losing their residence status in the city Palestinians dream of becoming their capital – or staying at home and not voting.

For the 6,000 residents who were allowed to vote in the city, all postal voting became a humiliating ritual designed to break their self-respect and send a clear signal that Palestinians would never control East Jerusalem. Instead of polling stations, they were forced to vote in post offices, placing their ballots in envelopes and post boxes rather than ballot boxes, all under the watchful gaze of Israeli officials. The message was clear – Palestinian electors resident in East Jerusalem were to be considered ex-pats, living in Israel but allowed to send their votes ‘back’ to Palestine only thanks to the generosity and administrative efficiency of the Israeli authorities.

Some candidates were denied the full freedom of movement they needed to campaign effectively in East Jerusalem during the weeks leading up to the election – the main challenger, independent candidate Mustafa Barghouti, was arrested the day before the election and released, reportedly, only after the intervention of former US president Jimmy Carter.

The official EU election monitoring mission praised the conduct of the elections, and recognised the difficult conditions imposed on Palestinian officials and voters by Israeli occupation. The Palestinian Authority had made a “genuine effort to conduct a regular electoral process despite the difficult and tense conditions”, a spokesperson for the mission – at 250-strong the largest in the EU’s history – said in a preliminary statement.

In spite of the obstacles, the Palestinian people clearly demonstrated their commitment to the democratic process. Turnout, at more than 50 per cent in many areas, was impressive even by Western standards, especially considering the widespread prediction that Mahmoud Abbas would win by a landslide.

Though this is, of course, to be welcomed as a positive step towards peace in the Middle East, we must remember that the real problem in the Palestinian territories is not lack of democracy- it’s the illegal Israeli occupation.

Much hope has been pinned on Mahmoud Abbas’s shoulders: the US, Israel and the world’s media have been quick to pronounce their willingness to do business with Mahmoud Abbas in a way which they had refused to with his predecessor Yasser Arafat. Yet this optimism is already at risk of dissolving in the wake of an Israeli assassination mission and a ‘retaliatory’ attack by Palestinian militants.

Much has been made of Mahmoud Abbas’s responsibility to rein in the Palestinian militants. Of course this is a major challenge, but the Israeli and US authorities must also take urgent stock of their own policies and responsibilities in the occupied territories if he is to stand even a chance of meeting it. In short, Israel must end the occupation and disband all illegal settlements immediately – in the West Bank as well as the Gaza Strip – and dismantle its so-called ‘security barrier’ which is dividing communities, destroying livelihoods and annexing Palestinian land throughout the occupied territories.

Only then will there be hope for a peaceful resolution to the weeping sore of conflict in the region and a better future for everyone, Israeli and Palestinian.Caroline Lucas is a Green Party MEP for South-East England and a veteran peace campaigner and Palestine-watcher. She was part of the European Parliament election observation mission in Palestine.