I came to the UK two weeks ago, at the invitation of the British Jewish organisation Yachad, to present my ideas for how Israel and Palestinian people might create a step-change that may bring about the forging of a political agreement. There is nothing more urgent than finding a way to end occupation and create two states, both for the sake of the Palestinian people and Israel. Both peoples deserve to live in secure, democratic, independent states, and I wish to see the Israel that my parents built remain true to its Jewish and democratic values.

Having spent my career serving in Israel’s navy and security establishment, having been present at numerous peace negotiations, and served as an Israeli cabinet member, I believe I have some ideas as to how this might be achieved.

I spoke to more than 1,000 people over the course of the week. But it was only at King’s College London, where I was speaking at an event jointly hosted by the KCL and LSE Israel societies along with Yachad, was I met with violence. A window was smashed, students were pushed and the event was cut short due to the disruption.

It is worth noting that in comparison to the audience inside the room, who came from a wide variety of backgrounds, and listened and engaged with what I had to say, those responsible for the chaos outside were small in number. Nonetheless, their behaviour has no place at a London university that is committed to free speech. In a democratic society, unless someone is guilty of hate speech or inciting violence, you have a right to express any opinion you want and people have a right to disagree with it, but not through violent means.

It is the slogan of the protesters that bothered me most: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”. Perhaps they do not know to which river or sea their chant refers, or what the consequences would be were this to become a reality. But to clear up any misunderstanding, it means an end to a state of Israel, which also exists between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, and consigning both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples to perpetual civil warfare in what would likely be one failed state.

This is an extremist position and not shared by the majority of Palestinians or Israelis, nor the international community, which is committed to a two-state solution. However, it is the people who hold these extreme positions that came to define the narrative of my experience at KCL, and sadly, the same can be said of the region today. It is the small minority of extremists – and both sides of this conflict are afflicted with extremists – that, for the past 20 years, have come to define the reality and future of the Middle East.

There are also places in Israel where I have tried to speak and have been prevented from doing so because people do not want to listen to another perspective. This is an unfortunate reflection of a growing anti-democratic trend within Israeli society. Each time this happens, our democracy narrows further, and our ability to tolerate others’ opinions is diminished.

Had the protesters engaged with me, they would have heard me say that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians have become the endgame itself rather than a solution, and that to achieve progress the architecture of the process needs to change, without giving up on two states. I would have told them about the vision of Blue White Future, the organisation I founded which advocates for independent constructive action, allowing both sides to take steps towards an agreement without requiring both sides to sit down and negotiate. For Israel this would include inviting settlers to return home to Israel and freezing settlement construction completely on the eastern side of the separation barrier.

I speak as an Israeli, and it is not for me to tell Palestinians what to do. But if their leadership will accept the concept of two states, 1967 borders with territorial exchange based on parameters of security, demography and contiguity, we should negotiate. In the meantime, both parties should move forward and create a reality of two states independently.

If the protesters at King’s College really wanted to help end occupation, they would listen and engage with new ideas as to how this might happen. They might not have agreed with my suggestions; that is their right. But we could have had a robust exchange of views and perhaps new ideas would have been formed – surely the very purpose of an academic institution?

I am sure that if King’s College London is committed to free speech they will invite me back to address an audience where we can have this discussion. In the meantime, I will do everything in my power in order to prevent extremists on both sides shaping our future, for the sake of Palestinians and Israelis and for the sake of democracy and free speech.