A missile is a demonstration of military force. Everyone in the region knows Israel is capable of blowing up a building.

This is a "we've got you hopelessly compromised as an organization" sort of demonstration that's far more humiliating.

For a similar example, see the US response to 9/11 - two decades of war, taking shoes off at airports, etc. - versus the US response to COVID, which killed a 9/11 worth every couple of days, but resulted in a "but I don't wanna wear a mask" response.

I agree that there may be some sort of psychological component, but his blah is not some thin-skinned organization that has been operating blissfully ignorant of what real death and destruction looks like. Nor are they unaware of the power of Israel's espionage Network.

It's easy to sit online and make bold and vague claims like there will be armed escalation in retaliation. If you are so confident, I would be happy to make a wager on a platform of your choice. What do you think constitutes a major escalation? I would happily bet against a ground invasion.

> It's easy to sit online and make bold and vague claims like there will be armed escalation in retaliation.

I mean, that's the pretty standard response in this conflict. Permanent tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, for decades/millennia depending on how broadly you count things. For a concrete example, Iran's April strikes.

> What do you think constitutes a major escalation?

Terror attacks on Israeli assets abroad - I'd be keeping embassies/consulates on alert - and rocket strikes against Israel. At least enough to try to save face, although the Iranian strikes offer a "good luck" for that.

> I would happily bet against a ground invasion.

By Hezbollah? Well, yeah.

It seems we got to the bottom of things by putting escalation in concrete terms. I don't consider rocket strikes against Israel to be a meaningful escalation given that here have frequent exchanges for the last year. I dont think an embassy attack is much of an escalation either, when two armies are in a hot war.

I think Netanyahu's champing at the bit for escalation, and there's plenty of precedent for relatively small things triggering big responses.

As a concrete example, the last big Israel-Lebanon war resulted from the capture of two Israeli soldiers in a border raid; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War

Do you think Lebanon will escalate by capturing prisoners? I agree that that could be an escalation given the context and history. That said, I don't know what a path to peace with Hezbollah looks like. It's hard to imagine Israel tolerating it imperfect ceasefire while Hezbollah continues to arm, given how that worked out with Hamas

I think that netanyahu would be very happy to see a de-escalation on the northern border and it would be a big win for his cabinet.

> Do you think Lebanon will escalate by capturing prisoners?

It's certainly part of the playbook, if they can manage some captures. Soft targets seem a lot more likely, though.

> That said, I don't know what a path to peace with Hezbollah looks like.

This conflict is creating the next generation of orphaned rage-filled extremists. Peace is a very, very distant goal at this point.

> I think that netanyahu would be very happy to see a de-escalation on the northern border and it would be a big win for his cabinet.

I very much disagree. Netanyahu is on a treadmill he can't ever let stop; ending the emergency means having to properly face his long-delayed criminal proceedings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Benjamin_Netanyahu).

> Do you think Lebanon will escalate by capturing prisoners?

They sure don't seem motivated to stop, if Israel's pre-planned response is still fratricide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive

if anything, Israel seems overly concerned with prisoner recovery, given the current situation in gaza and the Lebanon war