Mo Mowlam: Some lessons for the Middle East from the Ulster peace process

'If real peace is to be achieved, serious consideration must be given to Iraq and Iran'

Middle East crisis

UN security council supports state of Palestine for first time

US call for Palestinian state at UN applauded

Photographer killed in hail of Israeli tank fire

Sharon rounds on Defence Minister for army 'restraint'

Attack on Iraq would backfire, says Mowlam

US issues visas to dead pilots of hijacked jets

Robert Fisk: If Bush is having 'visions', America must need Arab support for another war

Mark Steel: Don't ask for the evidence, just nuke Baghdad

Leading article: At last, the Security Council equates Palestine and Israel

I'm often asked what the lessons are from the conflict in Northern Ireland for the Arab-Israel conflict. Surely they were both about land. My immediate response is that this is a dangerous game to play; every conflict is different.

There is a fundamental difference between the two conflicts. In Northern Ireland there are two main country players: the Irish republic and the British government. There are other countries, such as the United States, Canada, South Africa and Spain, who on the grounds of fair play and human rights want to help. The US has a greater interest than many because of the influence of a vocal Irish-American population. Enough outside countries taking an interest, you might think, but it is not a problem as there are no big differences between them as to their roles in pursuing peace.

In the Israel-Palestine conflict it is very different. All the interested countries want peace, but they view the conflict differently. The US has always been a strong supporter of the Israeli state. We were seen as pro-Arab in the past, but are now wavering between the two. Western Europe as a whole has always been more pro-Palestine. And the surrounding Middle East countries to varying degrees have been pro-Palestine.

This leads to a very complicated and exceedingly messy conflict. But allowing for the essential differences, I offer, from my experience in Northern Ireland, my thoughts on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The parties must not be pushed into positions. Although efforts should be made to find a way for the two sides to coexist peacefully, what is needed is a period when the two peoples can begin to play a central role in moving towards peace. The people are more flexible in trying to find peace than political leaders on either side will be.

Effort should be put into working for an agreement where it is understood by the Israelis that the establishment of a Palestinian state will be part of any final settlement. Tuesday's UN Security Council Resolution calling for this outcome is very welcome, as is Israel's acceptance of the resolution, albeit with conditions specifying that such a state pose no threat to its security. If the outlines of a final settlement can be agreed upon, the rationale for the intifada becomes less clear and the violence by the Israelis more difficult to defend.

President Bush's Middle East envoy, General Anthony Zinni, who returns to the region today, just may be able to bring about a ceasefire, which would then allow the combatants to turn their minds back to negotiations on matters of substance.

The detailed compromises needed to turn aspiration into reality will not satisfy either side. There are possible options available from previous talks, and now there are also helpful suggestions from the Saudi and Egyptian governments. But it must be emphasised that no proposal is set in stone; they can, however, serve as the basis for discussion on territorial issues, putting to one side for the moment issues such as the return of refugees, the holy places and claims for the future.

Discussions in drawing boundaries should focus on Israel's need for security and the Palestinians' need for a viable state. To facilitate progress, Israeli settlement policy should be reviewed, with a stage-by-stage withdrawal considered – each stage going ahead only if the violence does not start again.

Assistance from the US and Europe, political or economic, should be discussed and where possible co-ordinated. The UN could provide a small team to facilitate this, and to ensure that the views of countries friendly to the peace, such as Egypt, Jordan and Syria, are considered.

The Middle East belongs to the countries of the region, not to us. That is why, in my view, if real peace is to be achieved, serious consideration must be given to Iraq and Iran. The strength of these two countries is such that it is very difficult for other Arab countries to stand up to them. The response should not be to label them as part of an "axis of evil", and to bomb them. Such actions would only result in more deaths and increased support for violent action by more people – the exact reverse of the stated policy of those who would be carrying out the actions.

In Iraq, the internal divisions between Sunni and Shi'as, and the appalling behaviour of Saddam and his supporters, makes it difficult to see what can be done. If it is a case of waiting for Saddam to die, careful thought should be given to possible options that could follow and what role outside countries might play.

Iran is in a different position. President Khatami is trying to modernise his country; he is faced by opposition from powerful mullahs at the very heart of government. We should support his efforts; it is crucial to make a concerted effort to take steps in Iran's direction, to try and work for greater co-operation. This would be important in helping to find peace in the Middle East, and would also serve the West's own oil interests.

When, in early 2001, I was in Iran to talk to the government about drugs, I found the ministers, including President Khatami, and the people I talked to in the streets all eager to see what could be done on the drugs issue; but the people on the street were as keen to voice their anti-Americanism, and equally their dislike of UK support for America. Difficult as it is to achieve, if we are serious about finding a peace for the region we should try to improve our relations with Iran.

No conflict is simple, no conflict can be solved quickly; particularly, one that has been going on for years, in which many lives have been lost. The hurt is profound, as is the prejudice and bigotry between the two sides; but that is no reason not to try. These are some ideas from me; I'm not directly involved in the conflict and am no Middle East expert, but I desperately want to see talks start and progress made.

The crude facts are that the more people talk the less people are killed. People will continue to be killed as the talks start, and more will die if progress looks likely. There are people on both sides of the conflict who would prefer continued killings; those on the outside trying to help must first ensure that they do not make things worse.

The writer is a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland