The death of Osama bin Laden will not change the nature of the threat posed by al Qaeda and its affiliates in the short-term. In fact, bin Laden's death, coupled with the nationalist-driven – not Islamist-driven -Arab Spring, could lead bin Laden's followers to enhance efforts to attack Western targets in order to demonstrate that the global jihadist movement remains a potent force.

The Fatah-Hamas reconciliation agreement is a byproduct of the Arab Spring, and the Palestinian chess game to position the public of both the West Bank and Gaza Strip for Palestinian statehood. The questions that the deal raises are numerous-yet so are the possibilities.

First, I want to congratulate President Obama for bringing the only deserving end to Osama Bin Laden. This will send a clear message to every terrorist that America will remain relentless until we bring an end to the scourge of terrorism.

Amidst the stalemate in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking, a storm of diplomatic activity is brewing. The Palestinians, Israel and the United States are carefully calculating what moves to make next. Only the Palestinians appear to have a clear-cut strategy: to bring the conflict to the international arena through a United Nations General Assembly Resolution recognizing a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, within the 1967 borders. Meanwhile, the United States and Israel are feverishly working to develop counter strategies of their own that will shelve the Palestinians' United Nations plan and maintain some semblance of the prospect that a two-state solution can be reached through good-faith negotiations. For that to succeed, however, Israel must come up with a credible peace plan that the Palestinians are willing to accept as a basis for negotiations and that the Obama administration can also embrace. But with the September United Nations General Assembly just five months away, the time to make such a move on the Mideast chessboard is now.

The time and circumstances have presented Syria's President Bashar Al-Assad with a clear choice: Continue to convey an image of an impotent dictator sounding eerily similar to the embattled, aging and ousted despots who have failed to meet their people's needs, blaming foreign conspiracy for their shortcomings, or display bold leadership and vision in order to use the opportunity of the unrest to institute basic reforms and turn toward the West. The notion that Assad would do the latter is perhaps wild and far-fetched, but the benefits Syria would reap and the effect on other countries involved as a result would be of a magnitude that could change the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East in an unprecedented way.

The adoption of nonviolent methods by the Palestinian Authority to advance the Palestinian cause is admirable and represents the most promising strategy to affect change. But for a nonviolent movement to serve the intended purpose of advancing the peace process, it must be accompanied by public narrative supportive of both the strategy and the reality of Israel. The continued incitement against Israel emanating from Palestinian private institutions, media, schools and refugee camps defeats the non-violent strategy and instead serves to strengthen the voices of radicals on both sides of the Green Line. Rather than advance Palestinian independence, this vitriol contributes to the solidification of the Israeli occupation in the name of security. It is time for the Palestinians to realize this, because continuing verbal and written onslaughts that support the use of violence and perpetuate radical political narratives are detrimental to their cause and must be stopped.

Privately and quietly, in discussions among officials and analysts in both Israel and Turkey, recognition of the need to resume a positive working relationship is emerging. As the governments in Jerusalem and Ankara independently evaluate the turmoil that has engulfed the Middle East, they are finding only two countries that have a combination of functioning-albeit imperfect-democracies, stable governance, substantial security apparatuses and thriving economies. Unfortunately, that is not all they share. Both, Turkey and Israel are handicapped by their own misguided political rhetoric and posturing when it comes to their bilateral relationship. In the fallout over the flotilla incident last May, Turkish-Israeli relations-which were already declining-hit rock-bottom, and have since failed to significantly regain their footing. However, the many shared challenges that both nations face in the region today could serve to bridge the gaps that have kept their reconciliation at bay, and re-shape Israeli-Turkish relations amidst a rapidly-evolving Middle East.

It is difficult to be an American Jewish organization advocating support for Israel today. On the one hand, there is the staunch belief that Israel must be defended at all costs, and that any division will expose a weakness in the united Jewish front. On the other, American Jews traditionally advocate progressive policies in domestic and global affairs, which seemingly contradict their hard-line stances in support of an Israeli government that is apt to reject such liberalism. At a time when Israel is led by a government that is steering it toward unending conflict, and whose actions are threatening Israel's Jewish and democratic nature, much of the American Jewish community today is merely echoing the Netanyahu government's talking points. While unity has kept the Jewish world strong throughout the Diaspora, if it is perpetuated through blind support of misguided policies, it could severely undermine Israel's national security in the name of misplaced sense of unity.