I answered someone else here
It looks like the article was updated since I last read it, with the headline changed and a lot more information added, so maybe my claim is not true anymore. But I will tell you what bothered me about it initially anyways.
"whoever did it, it must be clear: That this was not an attack on the Lebanese state."
"Whoever did this did a surgical strike against the Hamas leadership," Regev said in the interview.
Those lines are heavily speculative commententary rather than "facts", aiming to downplay how much of an escalation this is. Those lines are found very high up in the 5th paragraph. It's the first commentary after saying that Israel refused to comment, and originally there was much less details presented.
Moreover, the article's headline (now changed) was something along the lines of "deputy Hamas chief killed in Beirut by blast". This verbiage has now been changed to "Israeli drone kills deputy Hamas chief", which is much better. The original is downplaying Israel's role.
They don't have to go that far. They can target Israel in occupied Akka (the occupiers call it Acre).
The article is full of speculation, opinions and commentary instead of merely presenting facts.
I think Israel lives on its people considering Arabs their enemy. It makes them tolerate a lot more from their government that they otherwise wouldn't.
I think they rather suffocate Palestinians slowly rather than end them all at once.
Lebanon main govt will recognize the game and let it be. Hezbollah will be upset and launch the same rockets they were going to launch anyway.
This is the optimistic output, and I hope that's what happens. But this is a major escalation from Israel, aiming to provoke hezbollah. It would not be any surprising if Hezbollah escalates back accordingly.
Israel does not gain from this assassination in the way you think. Hamas' effectiveness is not reduced one bit and Israel knows it. Their only goal is to escalate with Hezbollah, and justify expanding their attacks into Lebanon.
I just hope that Hezbollah makes a calculated response that does not give Israel the pretext they're looking for. So far, hezbollah has only attacked Israel in Lebanese territory, not Palestinian. Attacking Israel in Palestine would be a significant escalation but also an appropriate response.
Those borders you're speaking of at borders between hezbollah-controlled Lebanon and Israeli-controlled Lebanon. They're Lebanese regions not Palestinian.
Not that I would condemn attacking the Israeli military in Israel itself, but just clarifying bases in my knowledge.
It's obvious that the only reason Israel did this assassination is to provoke hezbollah. Their failure in gaza calls for trying with Lebanon. Israel seems desperate.
If only this were the only type of military action Israel would pursue.
I see what you're saying, but provoking a neighboring country into expanding the war is hardly something to celebrate.
Israel can't eliminate Hamas, but they're effective at targeting 5 year old children.
With the constant attacks from Lebanon into Israel and Lebanon sheltering hamas and hezbollah terrorists is there any benefit in not escalating?
Lebanon and hezbollah did not attack Israel in occupied Palestine. They have only attacked them in Lebanon territory that Israel occupies, your framing is misinformation and incorrect.
Israel just bombed Beirut, targeting a Hamas official.
This is a major escalation, and could mean an expansion of Hezbollah's involvement, spreading the war into other parts of the Middle East.