Wrong on all three:

1) The victims of yesterday's attack were overwhelmingly terrorist soldiers and mid-level management which fits the definition of surgical. If the results of this operation are as good as suggested by all the early reports, they just carved a major hole in the upper ranks of the organization (not even including the major damage they've caused over the last six months with surgical strikes on leaders).

2) We don't have confirmation that's it's them (but it likely is), and we know far more than that: we know that it incapacitated thousands of members of a designated terrorist organization with minimal impact outside of them.

3) Well, that's just your opinion, man.

Well I don't agree on (1) or (2). I think they are at least attempting to degrade the capabilities of Hezbollah, which is designated as a terrorist organization by the US and others. I don't really want to get into the depths of Arab/Israel conflicts as I don't think anyone really has a good solution to that, certainly not me.

However, I do find anti-BDS laws very hard to justify. It seems that many conflate antizionism with antisemitism, probably because some of the most vocal people are actually just dogwhistling against Jews in general. However, there is a large contingent of people, especially in the West, who are opposed to Israel's battlefield tactics and the current conflict, while simultaneously believing that Israel has a right to exist and defend themselves. Those people might reasonably decide that they want to boycott Israel or Israeli products to make their views heard (hit them in the pocketbook), but are prohibited from expressing themselves by these laws.

Are they unconstitutional in the US? One would imagine that if the Citizens United case says that money is speech, that would equally apply to people who want to boycott Israel. After all, we already tolerate much worse forms of antisemtic speech here. Why would we not also tolerate people voting with their money?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws

For sure, yesterday's was a terrorist attack, since it indiscriminately hit civilians (multiple children, healthcare workers, etc.)

That said, before more people jump on the rethoric of declaring a specific entity terrorist:

The decision is usually made by your state's authorities, and depending on where you live, Hezbollah might not be considered a terrorist organization, or its military wing might be considered terrorist, but not Hezbollah as a whole (like in the EU).

Since we've seen medics among the victims, it's pretty clear that this was not surgically targeting a the military wing, and thus few people would dare claim that this was targeted against terrorists.

8 senior Hezbollah officers are dead. So far the only clear indication of a non-Hezbollah injury is from a Hezbollah officers daughter.

Sounds successful and well targeted.

If you don't want your electronics to explode randomly, don't attack Jews.