Tough to get that through the minds of those who are already convinced. But this is solid proof that even the great Hezbollah wans nothing to do with fighting Israel and will not.
War is not a unidimensional, self-contained affair. It is basically an extension of politics and permanently interacts with the latter. In order to understand why wars are started and fought, and why many other crises do not actually lead to armed conflict, it is essential to consider the political context, backgrounds and implications.
A simple comparison of on-paper military strength between opposing parties never explains it all. Likewise, if a party refrains from engaging into a certain type of military action, this does not imply absence of hostility between that party and its adversary. One of the paramount political criteria to take into account when analyzing an actor's decision to enter a conflict or refrain from doing so despite an existing hostility, is the concept of legitimacy - both at the domestic and international scales.
You always need to be able to legitimize your action - even the harshest dictatorship where public opinion is suppressed and appears not to matter needs to do so (the views of local elites supporting the autocrat will still matter), and even if you are the most powerful imperial entity in human history. This is why the American neoconservative cabal, when devising their so-called "project for a new American century", as well as their plans to "reshape the Middle East", openly considered that in order to have the US system move into that direction and overcome internal resistance to such projects, they would need "another Pearl Harbor" to occur. This was miraculously "provided" to them shortly afterwards by the 9-11, 2001 attacks on US soil (which to me is just too much of a coincidence, but that's off topic). But even the global superpower, whose might was far more unchallenged in the late 1990's and early 2000's than it is today, could not simply resort to unlimited military means in a completely unhinged manner or whenever it wished, despite possessing the technical means to do so in theory. In practice though, things do not work like that.
Now when it comes to Lebanon's Hezbollah and its reaction to the present conflict in Gaza, Hezbollah does not enjoy sufficient domestic political legitimacy to enter this war, in which Lebanon has so far not been subjected to aggression by the zionists. Seeing how such an action would not be covered by international law either, this would reduce its international legitimacy as well (although legality and legitimacy aren't the same, legality can be a partial component of legitimacy).
This however does not mean that Hezbollah and the zionist regime aren't enemies. Quite the contrary is the case, given the two extensive wars they fought, the absence of any mutual peace agreement, and the obvious, continued hostility that exists between them, with their forces constantly preparing for confrontation against one another, their intelligence apparatuses facing off, their political discourses targeting each other.
As a matter of fact, up until the moment when the zionist regime commits a significant act of violence against Palestinians, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine will not initiate attacks on Isra"el" either. And this is despite the fact that their country is being occupied by the zionists, meaning that they'd actually have a greater justification for permanent military action against Tel Aviv. But they refrain from such, and focus their military resources on retaliating against Isra"el"'s regular acts of aggression.
However, the same does not apply to Egypt. The relationship between Cairo and Tel Aviv is no longer marked by enmity since the 1978 Camp David agreement and the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty. So the relationships between Isra"el" and Egypt, and between Isra"el" and Hezbollah cannot really be compared. Hezbollah is not going to start a new armed conflict against Isra"el", but will respond with all its power to any military aggression by the latter. Isra"el" might not consider it worth the costs nor politically feasible to attack Hezbollah at the moment, but should Hezbollah get weakened for whatever reasons, then such an attack will become more probable. Likewise, Tel Aviv is resorting to every other means short of full scale war to confront, harm and weaken Hezbollah as best as it can, and vice versa. Egypt on the other hand isn't being targeted in any manner by Isra"el", given the fundamental difference in relationship.
Another criterion is the choice of an appropriate defense strategy. Given the considerable asymmetry between the conventional forces of Isra"el" and its adversaries, the latter have no other rational choice but to employ asymmetric means and to subject the zionist entity to a "boiling frog" effort while playing the long game, rather than opting for a blind head-on approach. This is exactly what the Resistance in Palestine as well as the regional Axis of Resistance (including Iran, Hezbollah and their allies) are engaged in. And you can see the results on the battlefield as we speak. With every Isra"el"i aggression, the Palestinian Resistance is getting more effective, thanks to its adoption of this very outlook. Similarly, Iran and Hezbollah are getting more resilient and enjoy increased deterrence against potential zionist (or zio-American) aggression with each passing year.
