BBC: "Lebanese opposition party Hezbollah has condemned . . . "

Opposition. Party. I suppose there is a journalistic convention that one identifies things and the BBC thinks that it is more important to be neutral than to actually dispel the ignorance of the three readers out there who do not know what Hizbullah is.

Lebanese opposition party Hezbollah has condemned a UN Security Council vote to set up a tribunal to try suspects in the killing of Rafik Hariri.

The ex-PM and 22 other people died in a huge car bombing in Beirut in 2005.

A UN inquiry has suggested that Syrian and Lebanese intelligence forces played a role - which Syria denies.

The pro-Syrian Hezbollah group, which has previously blocked a parliamentary vote on the plan, said the UN decision violated Lebanese sovereignty.

"Pro-Syrian"? Wouldn't "Syrian-backed" (and Iranian backed) be a more informative way to put it? I suppose the story must avoid stating the obvious at all costs: Hizbullah opposes the tribunal because it works for the guilty party. Perhaps if you read the whole article from start to finish you kinda sorta get the idea. They're subtle, those journalists.

"The resolution, as much as it constitutes a violation of the Lebanese state and an attack on its internal affairs, it is contrary to legal rules and the charters and principles of the United Nations and the objectives for which it was established to achieve," the statement said.

The resolution was "illegal and illegitimate at the national and international level", the group added. [...]

Read the rest if you are more patient than me.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Tags: Hizbullah, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Hariri, UN