Two years ago, on the eve of the US-led invasion of Iraq, this newspaper said that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein could be the trigger for the long overdue spread of democracy throughout the Middle East. The winds of change after the dictator’s demise could, we hoped, result in a series of “velvet revolutions”, gradually replacing undemocratic regimes with people power. And, for those who thought such an outcome was implausible, that was exactly what was said before the largely peaceful revolutions that swept aside eastern Europe’s communist regimes in the late 1980s.

Now it may be beginning to happen. In Lebanon last week a popular uprising brought fundamental political change. The events set in train by the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former prime minister, resulted in the resignation of Lebanon’s puppet government. This otherwise bloodless revolution was followed yesterday by an announcement from Syria’s President Bashar Assad of troop withdrawals. Under pressure from the United States and notably from Saudi Arabia, Syria’s illegal occupation of Lebanon is nearing an end. In its place there can be a genuine flowering of democracy with the prospect of free elections this spring.

Lebanon is not an isolated case. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, after four terms and nearly a quarter of a century in office, is conceding moves towards freer elections and will stand against an opposition candidate. In Qatar the emir has turned himself into a constitutional monarch and elections will be held later this year. He congratulated the people of Lebanon on their actions. Kuwait is moving towards allowing women to vote, as is already the case in Bahrain, Oman and Qatar. Even Saudi Arabia has introduced municipal elections, albeit it on a small scale.

Why is this happening? Walid Jumblatt, leader of Lebanon’s Druze community, has been the harshest critic of America in the past. He attacked Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld’s deputy at the US defence department, as a “filthy son of a harlot of Zion” and accused the neoconservatives of “spreading disorder in Arab lands, Iraq and Palestine”. But Mr Jumblatt has had an epiphany. “It’s strange for me to say it,” he said in a recent interview, “but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8m of them, it was the start of a new Arab world.”

It is indeed strange to say it and it must be said cautiously. It would be counterproductive for George Bush and Tony Blair to trumpet their role in the spread of democracy in the Middle East. Most of the people on the streets of Lebanon were happier to draw analogies with Ukraine’s Orange revolution than anything that is happening in Iraq. That is as it should be. Democracy has to be seen as rising from within, not as the result of an American diktat. But we have the irony of a US president, elected as a self-confessed foreign policy novice, doing more to change the world than all but a tiny number of his predecessors.

At the heart of any permanent solution to instability in the Middle East is a lasting Israeli-Palestinian settlement. Here, too, there is room for optimism. Mahmoud Abbas, in London last week for Mr Blair’s summit, represents an important and progressive change from Yasser Arafat, his predecessor as Palestinian leader. While Israel and America could not do business with Mr Arafat, having decided that he was incapable of keeping promises, Mr Abbas is very different, openly condemning the recent suicide bomb in Tel Aviv as an act of terrorism. But Ariel Sharon, Israel’s prime minister, has to move, too. He must deliver the withdrawal of settlers and soldiers from Gaza in the summer and then consider what other concessions may be necessary to secure a lasting peace.

Israel has everything to gain from a deal with the Palestinians, as does the rest of the Middle East in abandoning its vendetta against Israel. It is time to nail the lie that democracy is incompatible with Islam. Democracy equals freedom and that should know no religious boundaries.