Yes. This is generally agreed upon as being a terminal escalation.

Attacking diplomatic missions very quickly turns into no diplomacy between the two countries. This doesn’t leave many options other than military actions on the table.

They're basically telling Iran to wage war on israel...

Okay, isn't bombing an embassy an absolutely insane escalation?

Yep. There's literally two countries in the world who could get away with it without causing a major diplomatic crisis if not downright war: Israel and the US.

The US has commissioned entire offices devoted to ensuring striking an embassy doesn't happen again. Millions are spent every year to update the (surprisingly ever-changing) locations of embassies around the world so they don't make the same mistake in the future. Whatever the thought process was that "allowed" a strike then has been eliminated and then some.

They're confident in their backing and feel invincible. Lebanon, a small coastal neighbor with sites from ancient judea. Expanding into the territory is probably on their timeline.

Israel is trying to create another six-day war. That's why they are trying to escalate it to neighboring countries. It's all a part of the Zionist land grab strategy. The current weakened state of Russia gives them an opportunity. Iran and Syria used to have a lot of military support from Russia. That may also be a reason for so much Israel receiving so much backing from the US.

Don't you think the entire point of Hamas' attack was to escalate the conflict?

They did it to try to broaden the conflict in hopes of drawing in direct military support from their western allies.

Israel has maintained effective control over Gaza since their military occupation ended almost 20 years ago, and they have really been making the Palestinians suffer.

Based on these considerations, some experts have found that “siege” better describes the situation.

However, the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights has said “the majority of international opinion” holds that Israel maintains effective control, even without armed forces present. While legal experts acknowledge that the lack of a military presence does not follow the “traditional approach” to analyzing effective control, they find that military presence is an “evidentiary test only.” They point to authorities such as the Israeli High Court, which have held that occupation status hinges on the exercise of effective control. They, therefore, find that technology has made it possible for Israel to use ongoing force to exercise effective control—imposing authority and preventing local authorities from exercising control—without a military presence.

Specifically, experts from the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory found “noting” positions held by the UN Security Council, UNGA, a 2014 declaration adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the ICRC, and “positions of previous commissions of inquiry,” that Israel has “control exercised over, inter alia, [Gaza’s] airspace and territorial waters, land crossings at the borders, supply of civilian infrastructure, including water and electricity, and key governmental functions such as the management of the Palestinian population registry.” They also point to “other forms of force, such as military incursions and firing missiles.”