On the Lebanese and Palestinian fronts surface indicators of a new and beneficial impetus, one that requires responsible assessment of the available opportunities and courage to adopt peaceful offensive strategies. The UN Undersecretary Nicholas Michel spoke about the impossibility of using Lebanon's international tribunal - aimed at punishing the parties involved in political assassinations in Lebanon - in any political tradeoff. These are extremely important words as they coincide with the UN commitment to end the era of impunity. They are equally important, since the Arab states are about to conclude, as France has earlier done, that Syria's objective in Lebanon includes inflicting institutional paralysis, fermenting crises to maintain political and presidential void, and instigating chaos. These two developments alone are sufficient to compel the launch of a new strategy for the Lebanese state, Siniora's cabinet, and the loyalist parliamentary majority. 
The Lebanese need the momentum of a new initiative that renews their confidence that the assassinations will not be forgotten, that accountability will be upheld, and that the democratic process in Lebanon will indeed represent a new start for the entire Arab region. Developments are indeed convenient for those Arab states that have evaded and continue to evade their duties. The developments are convenient for these Arab states to dare conclude that they are helpless if the international tribunal implicates governments, apparatuses or ruling officials in terrorist political assassinations. Given these developments, Arab states are better off if they abstain from offering protection and stop pretending that they can halt the new era of ending impunity.

It is better for the Arab states that condone the use of political assassinations to destroy Lebanon to stand behind their empty promises. These promises remain empty even if, every time they want to claim international value, weight and influence, they set on them the readily available Israeli seal. This old trick has now been exposed, triggering anger among the Palestinians who are becoming fed up as they see their suffering used as a chip on the bargaining table. The collective punishment of the Palestinian civilians in Gaza is the responsibility of Israel, Hamas, and these same Arab states that refuse to allow the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of Abbas and PM Fayyad to offer the Palestinians the option of ending the occupation through the process of institution building and through badly needed institutionalism. Despite this refusal, the momentum is building both on the Palestinian and Lebanese fronts and in spite of the opposing camp. Delegating the supervision of the borders to the Palestinian Authority scares Israel which fears that the Palestinian Authority may succeed at this mission as it had done before when it has successfully imposed law and order in Nablus despite the massive obstacles.

In this situation, a dynamic change leading to the realigning of Gaza and the West Bank will not come from a corrective initiative from Hamas, but rather, by allowing the Palestinian Authority to carry out its responsibilities. This in turn will drive a wedge between Hamas and the public since the success of the Palestinian Authority to end the siege and the collective punishment and to bring relief will represent a significant leap for the legitimacy and presence of an authority that can offer a model to serve the public and solve their problems. It is a viable alternative to the Hamas model and ideology. 

Salam Fayyad is thinking in a creative and radically different way. As he explained at a session in Davos, his idea is simple. It is based on approaching the Palestinian cause as "an issue of occupation only, not an as issue of occupation but…" He said, "If we succeed at that, given the international sympathy and the just nature of the cause, we will have taken the only path still unbeaten and we will have adopted the most effective approach to implement our national project for independence." What he means is building strong institutions in response to the criticisms and to the claim that "they are under occupation because they do not deserve and are not worthy of freedom." He said, "Despite the unfairness of the test, it is a test that we have to pass." He further added, "There is international consensus today to end the 1967 occupation. Hence, there is admission that this is an issue of occupation." In his opinion, the Israeli talk about terrorism, the continued Palestinian failure even after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and the use of the Gaza events as a means to prove that the Palestinians are incapable of self-government are all matters that constitute the "but…."

The procedures undertaken by the Abbas-Fayyad government convey a clear message saying: we fear you not. Studying the mental process at Hamas has led to the conclusion that it will not end its coup against the Authority. Consequently, Hamas can only be defeated politically by distinguishing Hamas from Gaza. Handing in borders supervision to the PA constitutes an important step toward achieving this objective. A military defeat of Hamas is out of the question and Fayyad is against a military approach for Gaza. The alternative is a simple equation: Either Hamas and the other factions recognize the approach of the Palestinian Authority to save the Gazans from collective punishment, or if they refuse, hold new elections.

Salam Fayyad has no interest in new official posts, not only because he knows that Mahmoud Abbas will not resign, but also because he wants a different model even within the framework of governance and authority. He wants the people to have self-confidence and as he says, "I will leave my post once I accomplish my mission." He confirmed, "I have no higher post at any level in mind or any interest in forming a political movement or a new party. And to avoid any interpretation, I assure that this is my last official mission and all I care for is to accomplish it." This is a significant model because the existing model in the Arab world is one obsessed with power, evading responsibility or accomplishment, and paralyzed by fear.

"We will not fear you" should not be the slogan of the Palestinian experience alone, but must also be the foundation to revive momentum in Lebanon to regain the initiative that reinforces the authority of the Lebanese state rather than the pro-Syrian or pro-Iranian militias. When the peaceful crowds take to the streets next week to commemorate the third anniversary of Hariri and his companions, let them raise the slogan "We will not fear you." It is high time to reject intimidation and to stand up to the attempts to fragment Lebanese institutions at the orders decreed by Damascus and Teheran and obeyed by General Michel Aoun who is obsessed about becoming president, or Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah who is determined to keep Hezbollah's arms to maintain Lebanon as an Iranian base.

Hezbollah has lost its credibility and its so-called accomplishments as a result of a series of violations. It refrained from participating in the cabinet sessions; it hindered the election of a new president; and it refused to withdraw from Beirut's downtown to allow people to return to their jobs to make a living. Worst of all, it has lost the friendship of the Lebanese army as it became clear to the army that Hezbollah has an interest in undermining it to gain the upper hand. Hence, Hezbollah is not the only representative of the Shiites of Lebanon because its loyalty is more Iranian than Lebanese. It is time for Hezbollah to hear the words: We fear you no more!

The ruling regime in Damascus, on the other hand, has to fear the major blunders that it may commit at the peak of its anger. Syria will never return to Lebanon even if Lebanon is pushed into civil war because such a war will be sectarian in nature and will ultimately backfire at the regime in Syria. Syria cannot isolate itself from such a war, especially since it has excessively offered safe haven and passage for the elements of al-Qaeda and its likes, which operate in Iraq and stay as "guests" on Syrian territories. Syria will never return or be returned to Lebanon under any circumstances.

Syria is now in shock. Its president had vowed not to surrender any citizens to the tribunal. Its government systematically worked on undermining the establishment of the tribunal and laid its bets on neutralizing it through a series of bargains and political favors. Now, however, all Syrian hopes to eliminate the tribunal have been dashed away and the Syrian leadership must carefully rethink its options. None of these options include the sacrifice of minor suspects in the assassinations because the evidences are now out of the hands of politicians and are ready for the trial. The culprits know exactly what this means. Those thinking of protecting anyone under any circumstances may be putting the entire regime at risk. Even those contemplating the sacrifice of senior officials must think beyond the survival of the regime because that survival deal has become more complicated, as impunity is no longer an option. Hence, the message to the Syrian regime should be: We will fear you no more because it is too late for you to intimidate us.

The pro-government forces of the March 14 Movement have decided to launch a peaceful offensive against the status quo as a result of the continued assassinations and the persistent public frustration. This comes as it has become crystal clear that repeated concessions to the opposition allied with Syria and Iran is useless, and after Nicholas Michel has made it obvious that the tribunal is due soon and will not be stopped by a political deal or instigated chaos. Hence, the March 14 initiative involves a massive popular movement on February 14 in commemoration of the Hariri assassination to reorganize the ranks of the Movement. The Movement has decided to say "enough!" to the concerned parties, including Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa who, in the name of diplomacy, refuses to name names and instead seeks a flexible but indecisive mediation. The Movement has decided to offer fewer concessions and become more decisive and resolved.

Right now, there is a valuable opportunity that demands the adoption of an integrated offensive strategy which requires shedding the burdens of a few opportunists who act as consultants here and theoreticians there. It requires the courage to say: we will not fear you no matter what! First, the international community is committed to the investigation and the tribunal. Realizing that it has erred in assuming good intentions in Damascus, France is back along with the wrath of Europe at the Syrian maneuvering. The Arab States, for their part, are increasingly holding Syria accountable for the presidential void in Lebanon. As for the United States, it will not retreat on the main pillars of the American policy toward Lebanon; those expecting otherwise from a new president should read into the words of Democratic candidate Barack Obama who upset any bets on his leniency with Damascus, Hezbollah and their allies once he made it clear that he supported the disarming of all militias and the tribunal, shutting all doors against deals and bargains.