Israel's Coming Free Fire Zone

As I said in TP, Israel is trying to depopulate the southern part of Lebanon.  The WP notes that  "residents have been told to leave the southern sector of the country below the Litani River within 24 hours."

Presumably after 24 hours,  anybody left will be considered hostile. Forcibly depopulating a portion of a country strikes me as horrific. I understand it's not to conquer the region but simply an attempt to gain some margin of security. But that real need doesn't mean  all tactics to achieve it are ipso facto legitimate. 

It's not just a problem of principle, but of many people likely dying. Tyre, a port city south of the river, is stuffed:

Many who remain in the port city appeared to be stranded , lacking -- with banks shuttered, gasoline scarce and bombed roadways nearly unnavigable -- the money or means to flee.

In 24 hours, what will their lot be?

P.S.  Why isn't the depopulation order being flagged by the  NYT?  The paper's current headline: "Marines Aiding Evacuation in Beirut; New Clash in South." The LAT isn't any better, nor is CNN. They're missing a historic development.

Comments

[Zathras]

Well, what are the alternatives?

Continuation of the air offensive without advisories to the civilian population to leave would (rightly) be condemned as putting civilians at unnecessary risk. A ground offensive would cause much higher casualties whether civilians were notified or not, since precision air munitions can to some extent be targeted so as to avoid concentrations of civilians and ground operations can't be. From the Israeli point of view accepting a ceasefire in place combines the worst of all options, subjecting Israel to international opprobrium for the air strikes it has conducted so far while leaving Hezbollah in position to send everyone back to square one whenever the moment seems right.

Also, from a purely tactical point of view a free-fire zone is more useful to a force using primarily unguided munitions and relying on the volume of fire to a general area to destroy the enemy. While Israel could rely on this tactic if it chose this does not appear to be what it is doing now.

I wonder why no one has thought to finesse some of the more intractable issues between Israel and Hezbollah by suggesting that Nasrallah simply apologize for having broken the peace. By taking personal responsibility Nasrallah might pave the way for quick prisoner exchanges and a cessation of hostilities. Of course if Israel thinks now that it has a chance to prevent Hezbollah from being able to create a similar situation in the future it may not want to stop fighting even in response to such a gesture. But I don't see what would be lost by making the suggestion to Hezbollah.

[David]

Just wanted to mention that the buffer zone, being forcibly created by Israel, is also about Water, a precious commodity in the region, that has been steadely taken away from the local Arab population (Palestinian and now Lebanese) by Israel for some time.

[wayne]

The question still remains. Is Israel justified in destroying a country because Hezbollah captured two of it's soldiers?

[Rapier]

I wish it weren't a question. Even taking into account Hezbollah's feeble projectiles, the deliberate destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure and slaughter of scores of non-combatants cannot be justified.

Of course, considering what we did to Iraq, it seems Israel is simply taking a page out of our book.