A fortnight ago I was part of a delegation of 160 European parliamentarians who travelled to the Middle East, Jordan, Israel, and the West Bank.The Middle East is the region with the greatest potential to disturb world peace and disrupt the international economy, writes Martin Mansergh
While the European Union has a legitimate role, its soft power focus, in what King Abdullah of Jordan acknowledged as "a very rough neighbourhood", has left it with marginal influence compared with the US.
There are at present two areas of conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian one and the post-war situation in Iraq, with Jordan uncomfortably wedged between the two. Both Jordan and Egypt by concluding a separate peace deal with Israel have removed themselves from the front line to concentrate more on national development.
The Middle East has a peace process that has gone most bloodily wrong. Israelis and Americans blame President Arafat for that, for failing to clinch a reasonable peace deal in the dying days of the Clinton administration, although the difficulties in managing a militant and fanatical support base are never to be underestimated.
On the other hand, anyone with experience of Northern Ireland could have predicted that the choice of the Sharon administration to pursue mailed fist security policies would only exacerbate the situation. Palestinian militancy has, in effect, to be disarmed before negotiations can commence.
The Israeli government would like us to see the situation in a greatly simplified way, as European-style pluralist democracy versus terrorism. Since most Israelis originate from Western countries, they have a headstart in understanding what appeals to European opinion.
My other Irish colleague, Independent senator Mr David Norris, beginning in Hebrew, asked Mr Sharon how he could justify keeping a minister who had called for the physical elimination of Yasser Arafat.
Mr Sharon replied that Mr Arafat was alive and well, and probably planning more terrorism against women and children, and that the Israeli government had no such plans at present. The exchange made the front page of all the Israeli newspapers.
Mr Arafat is the excuse for putting off negotiations, but it is not up to the Israeli or US governments to determine who should be Palestinian leader.
Our Government has, properly, met Mr Arafat both in Dublin and Ramallah, and we do not accept that this is unhelpful to the peace process.
The foundation of a Jewish state in Palestine was approved by the international community. There are also Islamic states. There is a tension between the ethos of the State of Israel and the ideals of a pluralist democracy, given there is a substantial Palestinian-Arab community inside the State of Israel which does not feel equally treated.
The Palestinian demand for the unrestricted right of return, is, I feel at this stage, in view of its manifest lack of political realism, mainly a negotiating position.
As with the original Articles 2 and 3 of our own Constitution, it will only be modified in the context of a comprehensive political agreement treaty.
Israeli government-assisted and protected West Bank and Gaza settlements are being used to create facts on the ground that may be difficult to remove or withdraw from, given the fanaticism that exists within some settlements also.
Unilateral withdrawals are virtually ruled out, on the grounds that they would be seen as a sign of weakness and would encourage the terrorists, although Israel did withdraw from south Lebanon, without catastrophic consequences.
As at the foundation of Northern Ireland, the more territory and population Israel takes in or annexes, and on the assumption that all residents sooner or later enjoy full citizenship rights, the more they undermine the long-term viability of the Jewish state, even if further immigration of one million Jewish people is encouraged.
It is easy to understand why Palestinians feel increasingly desperate. They are promised in principle an independent Palestinian state, to which lip-service is paid, but in the meantime Israeli settlements are spreading over the most favourable West Bank locations from a water source point of view.
The morally indefensible civilian suicide bombings, which alienate so much international support for the Palestinian cause, have led to the construction of part of a security fence, which does not run along the 1967 border.
It divides Palestinians from each other, and hampers their movements across their own territory.
Land is not the only issue. There are few green belts, and there is little opportunity to build on flat or almost barren land that can at best support wandering flocks of sheep and goats of Bedouin tribes and olive groves.
The more important issue is that the badly treated Palestinian people should have a separate state of their own, not totally fragmented and held in subjection to Israel, but not a further threat to it either.
The conflict, like its counterparts elsewhere, is economically ruinous, quite apart from the multiple human tragedies it causes.
Many things could be settled in negotiation, if a more conciliatory and constructive spirit could be established on both sides.
As was said on the visit, neither a greater Israel nor a greater Palestine is going to happen.
There has to be peaceful co-existence, and better sooner than later. There are many private, including Israeli opposition, initiatives trying to lay the ground for this.
Understandably, Jerusalem and Bethlehem were very quiet, in comparison with my last visit in early 2000.
There should be mass tourism. The greatest surprise to me was the minuscule size of the River Jordan, not much bigger than a large Irish ditch at the Allenby Bridge, although it is presumably more swollen when it rains or mountain snows melt.
Perhaps it was bigger 2000 years ago.
The metaphor of the Wailing Wall seems appropriate, and the present situation reflects no great credit either on the three great monotheistic religions or on the secular movements involved.
But the situation need never be insoluble, if the will is there.