In fact, Lebanon's army has admitted firing at Israeli soldiers -- first.Lebanon's army says it first fired warning shots, then Israelis fired at their soldiers, who shot back in turn.
Hamilton then quotes an anonymous Israeli military source to suggest that the attack was not intentional:
Conjecture so sensitive apparently, that Hamilton cannot disclose the identity of the source.The incident was "an escalation because somebody made a mistake," said the military source, pointedly refusing to describe it as a deliberate attack.
The Reuters correspondent then attempts to support this anonymous quote with a statement by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak:
Defence Minister Barak told Israel Radio it was a "provocation," but also declined to call it "an ambush."
Note how Hamilton seeks to suggest the attack was not an ambush because Barak didn't happen to use that specific term. But while Barak reportedly doesn't believe the attack was planned "in the general staff of Lebanon", he doesn't say it wasn't an ambush and he doesn't say it wasn't planned. He simply doesn't know who gave the order to attack on the Lebanese side."I don't think they planned this in the general staff of Lebanon. Nor do I think they planned it in Hezbollah. I don't know enough to tell you exactly who gave the order," he said.
The rest is pure rhetorical deception employed by Hamilton to implant doubt in the minds of readers as to Lebanese culpability for the killing of an Israeli officer.
UPDATE 11:20 AM: The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that "Senior Lebanese army commanders planned and authorised the cross-border shooting".