WASHINGTON — Earlier this month, Israeli soldiers were pruning a tree on their country’s northern border when a firefight broke out with Lebanese soldiers across the fence, leaving one Israeli and four Lebanese dead. The skirmish seems to have been accidental. But it quickly set off a war of words in Washington and Beirut, with American lawmakers warning ofHezbollah infiltration in the Lebanese Army, and threatening to cut off $100 million in military aid.
 The skirmish seems to have been accidental!! Since when are accidents planned

Then we have this tidbit:

The Americans want to help their friends in the Middle East while insisting that they rigorously cut off militant groups like Hezbollah, the Shiite movement that is committed to Israel’s destruction. But the realities on the ground almost always demand difficult compromises that can seem, from Washington, like dangerous concessions to the enemy.
Lebanon, for instance, is an intricate patchwork of sects and political factions where the army plays the precarious role of a middleman. No one can avoid working to some degree with Hezbollah, the most powerful military and political force in the country. The alternative, Lebanon’s pro-Western factions say, is much worse.

“Should we undermine the army and give the whole country to Hezbollah?” said Paul Salem, the director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut. “It’s a classic ‘cut off your nose to spite your face.’ ” 
 So America wants friends in the Middle East, and the best way to help their 'friendship' with Lebanon is to help their 'friends' (who happen to be supporters of their enemies) even while those friends are in cahoots with enemies of democracy and all that makes this state great. (My head is spinning from such logic) What is this ingenious stupidity that the State Department seems to possess? And why is this Author agreeing with them?

(Note: Elder of Ziyon has written an excellent piece on this article as well. I apparently missed it before I wrote this. Read his piece here.)