Hacker News Reader

Comment by lyu07282 | Hacker News Reader

The key part to understand why this means nothing:

> Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said in a statement that the country had finalized a memorandum of understanding with the United States

> The agreement will be signed on Friday

> In a statement, Supreme National Security Council said the agreement called for an immediate end to military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon

But Israel is never going to reverse its invasion of Lebanon, its key to their Greater Israel[1] project. It's important to know that Israel is currently occupying parts of southern Lebanon [2]. Trump would have to force Israel to stop its illegal invasion, that's never going to happen.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel#Egypt,_Syria_an...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Lebanon_war

View on HN

I've always wondered what "illegal" means in this context? Is it designed to just be a pejorative, or something incendiary? When is an invasion "legal"? I can't really think of any case where any kind of recognized body of law (especially one that both constituents would recognize) would impose legality on an invasion, so it seems that people say "illegal" in much the same way that "legal" has become a stand-in in our society for "moral".

Should I read it as "immoral invasion"? Leaving aside whether it is or isn't, at least that framing makes sense, because you can meaningfully debate the morality of an invasion, but I can't understand how you could debate legality (except perhaps within the country's own internal framework of laws, like if a president declared a war without going through the proper legal channels).

An invasion can be legal when authorized by the UNSC due to some crisis or when it's done in self-defence or to defend some other country.

So examples of some illegal invasions: US invasion of Iraq, Russian invasion of Ukraine. Legal invasions (although illegalities were found afterwards, but much of the invasion was legal) are the invasion of Libya, probably the NATO invasion of Serbia depending on what actually happened (there are still some open questions-- it matters why people went in).

Reasons to think the Israeli invasion of Lebanon is illegal are the mass-bulldosing of civilian buildings, destruction of farmland, some opinion articles about Lebanese territory being legitimately Israeli territory and an appropriate target for settlement etc. It shows a plan that is not primarily about self-defence.

Disgusting that dehumanising Israelis has become a past time of people on this website. Having stared down Hezbollah flags in Israel’s north and having friends living on the border under constant fire many of whom have had damage to their homes, I have no confusion of who Hezbollah is. If you have any soul, how about you speak to the families of the half a million Syrians that Hezbollah helped Assad’s regime to murder? Or the Lebanese about the enormous 2020 port explosion?

How did hezbollah come to exist in what was a christian nation not that long ago? How would it be erased and without a new one propping up right outside that exclusion zone?

> a christian nation not that long ago?

Gosh .. Leaving aside a history of human occupation going back to 5,000 BC or so and looking just at more recent history, Lebanon came under Ottoman rule in the early 16th century and that "proto state" became a concentration area for Lebanese Maronite Christians who (IIRC) made up only 25% or so of the population.

I think it would be better described as a nation with Christians (and other faiths) rather than as a purely Christian nation.

There's also the post WWI Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, administered by France, followed by the post WWII new Lebanese state that gained gained independence from Free France - that was a balancing act between multiple religious groups and also hardly a purely Christian nation.

As to the question asked, Hezbollah was founded in 1982 directly as a result of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

That's a very light on detail overview - it's just cans of worms all the way down.

I talked to a Lebanese born person once and apparently they have a parlament with reserved seats for each major religious group.

Apparently that was the only way they managed to keep the country stable. But it is baffling to have religion so entrenched on the constitution.

> keep the country stable

Well, that part didn't exactly work out in practice.

More stable than outright civil war.

>who (IIRC) made up only 25% or so of the population. >I think it would be better described as a nation with Christians (and other faiths) rather than as a purely Christian nation.

The total was the majority of the population and yes it wasn't a purely christian nation. https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-e... You can similarly describe various countries as multifaith but in practice it happens rarely. Very few people descibe israel as such for example.

At the end of the day if hezbollah is vanquished and for that the frontier is shifted why is the expectation not that a new one in kind props up outside of this new frontier?

You accuse me of dehumanizing people while Israel is considering Palestinians just existing, politically offensive. No amount of propaganda and internet censorship can overcome the first live streamed genocide in history, and everybody can see [1] a repeat now in Lebanon, Israels reputation is done.

Also criticism of the government of Israel's actions ISN'T dehumanizing Israelis, THAT is insulting, I can be critical of Trump all day every day without anybody thinking I want harm to come to American people.

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2026/04/24/middleeast/lebanon-destru...

Israel does not consider Palestinians existing as offensive. Don’t straw-man me

And yet you were not critical of Netanyahu. You chose to be critical of Israelis… Don’t hide behind lies

Reply on news.ycombinator.com