Washington Post's editorial on Hariri tribunal

Here is the article. Their words are in red and then my comment.   The Post says about the Hariri tribunal: "it may be the strongest card held by the United States and its allies in a crucial power struggle with Syria and Iran."  So the critics of the Hariri tribunal are right: that it is an instrument by US and Israel (I like how the Post said "allies" as a euphemism for Israel--very very cute indeed).  So you are confirming the critics, thanks.  It then said:  "The indictment is widely believed to name senior officials of the Hezbollah movement." So this transparent and secret court is not really secret and transparent after all.  It then said (pleas dry your tears): "Hariri, a Sunni billionaire who led the reconstruction of Lebanon after its civil war, was widely revered in the country and respected around the region."  Well, let us analyze in sectarian terms: he was hated by most Shi`ites, he was hated by most Christians because he was puppet of the Syrian and Saudi regime, and he was hated by secular leftists for his alliance with Saudi Arabia and for aborting the Civil marriage plan for Lebanon and for pushing the corporate interests in Lebanon.   Respected around the region? Where? In intelligence circle and cronies of Prince Muqrin? Hariri became popular really as a corpse although he did become a sectarianly popular candidate in 2000 parliamentary election when he fought against the secular Salim Huss.  Here the Post defines March 14:  "That has destabilized Lebanon's delicate balance between pro-Western factions..." They should read about the Salafi March 14 who are profiled in Nir Rosen's Aftermath.  Then: "Hezbollah, which lost Lebanon's past two elections, often gets it way through the threat of force, and it may be able to intimidate the Lebanese parliament into replacing Mr. Hariri with a prime minister who will do its bidding."  Well, thus far it is not about intimidation as it is about the defection of the opportunist and unprincipled politician (described by Economist as "suave"), Walid Jumblat.   Here another example of non-interference by the US in Lebanon's affairs: "The Obama administration has rightly encouraged Mr. Hariri to stand his ground. "  Cute, no?  Of course, the conclusion is the best part:  "Neither Mr. Hariri nor the United States has the capacity to disarm Hezbollah or to end the threat it poses to Lebanon, Israel and the broader Middle East. By insisting that the tribunal proceed, however, the United States and its allies have the opportunity to expose the movement's homicidal terrorism, directed at fellow Arabs and Muslims, and its dependence on the Syrian and Iranian dictatorships."  Notice that Hizbullah is not only a threat to Israel but to the whole region. The Zionist lobby is thus not worried about Israel as much as about the threat to the Arab people.  The editorial then refers to terrorism by Hizbullah against "Arabs and Muslims" but it is not clear what they are talking about here. But it is cute how they also add that Hizbullah depends on the Syrian and Iranian dictatorships and that this is a source of displeasure for the Post and the West.  Does that mean that March 14 dependence on the Saudi, Jordanian, UAE, and Egyptian dictatorships is also objectionable?? Enlighten me, please.