First came the Arab Spring. Then came news of an Egyptian brokered Fatah-Hamas reconciliation deal. And at midnight Sunday week we had the killing of Osama bin Laden.

On paper the three major developments might seem totally unrelated but, if handled well, these three key events could bring about a whole sea change in the Middle Eastern scenario.

That is unless any parties with vested interests in retaining the status quo will risk losing the plot at their own peril.

Ironically the liberal Israeli press and media have latched onto these geo-political and geo-strategic umbilical cords by even hinting that there could be a bin Laden peace dividend for the Middle East itself.

Coming as it does four months before the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 massive terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers we still have to find out whether Osama’s killing will bring more global stability around or not. On one hand al-Qaeda is reported to be already a badly fractured organisation which has had the wind taken out of its sails by the grassroots uprisings that took place without its violent calls and streaks.

On the other hand some claim that al-Qaeda has long been operating as a franchise away from the extended arm of its leader; it has also meanwhile forcefully expanded its global network.

What I found most intriguing was the claim by senior US officials in the US media that apart from representing the beginning of the endgame in Afghanistan, bin Laden’s death could present an opportunity for reconciliation that did not exist before. In the sense that while bringing the various Taliban factions to the negotiating table will remain a challenge, a little noticed speech by Hilary Rodham Clinton of last February could gain in added gravitas.

On that occasion she had hinted at a significant shift toward encouraging such dialogue, while making it clear that the Taliban no longer had to renounce violence, break with al-Qaeda or embrace the Afghan constitution as pre-conditions for talks. So much so that she had said that ‘now those terms only have to be necessary outcomes of any negotiation.’

Clinton’s golden words were the following:

“Reconciling with an adversary that can be as brutal as the Taliban sounds distasteful, even unimaginable. And diplomacy would be easy if we only had to talk to our friends. But that is not how one makes peace.”

It is obviously not for me to dictate whether the US or even the West itself will adopt such an approach, but using the same thinking and rationale one could easily see a way forward on the Palestinian-Israel check board too. Even if we remain cautiously optimistic all along.

As a firm believer in a two-State solution in the long-run I will not accept anything less than that in the final negotiations between the parties concerned.

But it would be simplistic and bordering on the naïve or the deceitful to contend that only Hamas seem to be for a one-State solution rather than a two-State solution.

Apart from this possibly and arguably proving to be a sterling occasion for the US to downsize its presence in Afghanistan – and by that I also include the military contractors on the ground and not just the official troops – Obama, whose ratings have undoubtedly risen as a result of the Osama killing, could ride the wave by recognising a Palestinian State as Fatah and Hamas end their rift.

It was the Israeli press itself that argued that even if the Palestinians prove a disappointment and even if the move does not yield immediate practical results, demonstrating goodwill would help Israel retrieve a moral standing in the eyes of the world. Particularly since despite Israel’s desperate efforts to stall the process, the die appears to be cast – a Palestinian State will be founded, and soon. And now the question is what Israel should do – beyond lobbyism, spreading horror and expressing fears.

US standing in the world will surely rise if it manages to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord that works.

In my opinion the killing of Osama bin Laden could mean enhanced leverage for Obama to do so as far as such peace talks are concerned.

It is pointless congratulating certain countries on their winds of change while allowing such a golden opportunity to pass by, particularly when the conflict has festered for years.

One can understand why the US might have chosen not to give priority attention to Libya, particularly since compared to Egypt it is marginal in strategic importance.

Even more so now, when the Egyptian interim government is hedging its bets towards opening relations with Iran, opening the crossing between Egypt and Gaza, and promoting the reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, while no one really knows what the Muslim Brotherhood would really morph into.

If the US is willing to sit down with the Talibans even before they reject their harsh stance, I see no reason why the Palestinian reconciliation process should not be allowed to breathe some oxygen rather than prejudging it before it even takes off the ground.

The hawks will remain hawks.

When Arafat ran the show he was dismissed as a terrorist.

When Abbas took over he was considered to be too weak.

When Hamas won the elections they were rubbished because of their anti-Israeli stance.

Now as is likely to be the case Fatah could be instantly dismissed as being in bed with Hamas.

This is the stock in the trade that is invariably resorted to; to ‘prove’ that Israeli has no partner for peace!

Serious analysts have long realised that with the recent upheavals Hamas have lost some of their strategic allies’ strength and support bases, while polls have even suggested that Fatah right now enjoys even much more support than Hamas in the Gaza Strip. I am realistic enough to realise that a resounding resolution at the UN General Assembly in September on Palestine will not necessarily change much on the ground, but it would be short sighted not to realise that apart from posing new risks such an agreement between Fatah and Hamas could also present opportunities.

I am confident that with his added clout President Obama is in pole position to adopt a new strategic approach to the whole region. Particularly as the regional and international power dynamics have been changing at lightning speed.

There should be no room or space for those who want to uphold the status quo or throw a spanner in the works to serve their own self-interests.

Even more so when the region’s geo-strategic environment is radically different today compared even to half a decade ago.

Whether the Hamas-Fatah hug gives a false illusion of unity or not, I feel that the US Presidency should seize the moment. Otherwise Mr Obama risks going to the polls lumped with a mortally wounded peace process that could easily be dead and buried by then.

The UN through its Secretary General welcomed the efforts for reconciliation and proffered hope that they would enhance peace making efforts, while the EU welcomed the reconciliation efforts and encouraged the parties to pursue peace.

Some have claimed that the value of the assassination of Osama bin Laden was more symbolic than practical. In the same breadth the Israeli liberal media has claimed that Obama must now bring his daring to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

I could not but agree more that as Obama became stronger domestically these last few days, he not only could but should drive his administration to make a more aggressive effort to bring peace to the Middle East.

[email protected]

www.leobrincat.com

Leo Brincat is the Shadow Minister for the Environment, Sustainable Development & Climate Change