An outbreak of amity is threatening to destabilise long-held opinions on the Middle East. A series of recent gatherings has featured surprising lists of guests being nice to each other, and there are more to come.

First came last week's meeting in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. Attendees included Hillary Clinton, the new US Secretary of State, Nicolas Sarkozy, French President, and a group of Arab nations. They agreed on $4.48bn in aid for the Palestinian economy and the rebuilding of Gaza after the recent Israeli conflict.

Mrs Clinton, charged by her boss in the White House to make a far more determined effort in the Middle East than the Bush administration, then dispatched two envoys to the Syrian capital Damascus. The US has tended to view Syria as a destabilising sponsor of terrorism, but now thinks it worth trying to bring it in from the cold and so put pressure on Syria's friend Iran.

As if that was not interesting enough, Tuesday saw the start of talks in Cairo between Fatah and Hamas, the two wildly opposing camps vying for Palestinian support. After the conflict in Gaza, they are seeking to build a unity government in the territory as a supposed requirement for pursuing talks with Israel and others on the establishment of a Palestinian state. Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister who is detested by Hamas, tendered his resignation at the weekend, in a move that could prove helpful to the talks.

Perhaps most remarkable of all, Bashar al-Assad, Syria's president, is on Wednesday scheduled to hold talks with Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah in Riyadh, the Saudi capital. The two countries were reported to be making friendly overtures at Sharm el-Sheikh after years of hostility, and have now moved quickly to capitalise on this new mood.

Where is all this encouraging shuttling leading the region? Perhaps, say diplomats, to an impressive show of unity at an Arab summit in Doha on March 30. One Arab source is reported to have said the aim of the summit was to "see an end to the era of Arab disputes".

A Western diplomat told the Telegraph he thought the 22 nations in the Arab League were trying to coalesce around a negotiating position that would see them all prepared to declare their recognition of Israel in return for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Such a declaration would be a useful contribution to a breakthrough in the region. Mr Assad, Syria's president, has already suggested recently he could sign a peace agreement with Israel even without a Palestinian resolution. But he also admitted that such an agreement wouldn't amount to much in itself.

Maybe so, but even symbolism would ratchet up the pressure on Hamas, which Mrs Clinton has made clear needs to recognise Israel's right to exist. "It is difficult…to deal with Hamas…in order to be a partner in the peace process, you must renounce violence, recognize Israel, and abide by prior … [Palestinian] agreements."

Just as importantly, any show of unity from Arab nations would also put pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu as he seeks to build Israel's new government.

Mr Netanyahu has to give a top job to Avigdor Lieberman, the leader of a far-right party which holds the balance of power in coalition negotiations after the recent elections. It emerged last week that Mr Lieberman might be offered the post of foreign minister, a move which at first sight could seem a disaster.

But even there such an appointment may not be as awful as it looks. Mr Lieberman, say diplomats, would be forced by such a high-profile job to account for his views on enforced loyalty pledges for Arab Israelis, illegal settlements and the like, on a world stage. Who knows how he might melt under the hot spotlight of international opinion?

Call me a dreamer, but Mr Lieberman has already been trying to water down his unrelentingly hawkish image. Last week he said he had changed his views in recent years and now supported the creation of a Palestinian state, of course under certain stringent conditions. He has even had to counter accusations that he hid his new cuddly side during the election campaign for fear of alienating his hardcore support.

The Jerusalem Post reported that Mr Lieberman had accused the press of being shallow for not reporting the dovish things he had said in the past.

Diplomats looking for further upside to Mr Lieberman also point out that he was Mr Netanyahu's chief of staff in the mid-1990s, a period when Mr Netanyahu was prime minister and when he was most minded to give concessions in Palestinian negotiations.

Mr Netanyahu and Mr Lieberman may in fact be just the men for negotiating a peace which Israelis could trust and support, in the same way that the aggressively anti-Red Richard Nixon was the man to open up talks with China and pursue détente with the USSR.

Clearly all this is just meetings and words for now, and like so many efforts in the past they could soon crumble into desert sand. But a bit of good news from the Middle East certainly beats another depressing round in the global financial meltdown.