Israel on Friday vehemently criticized a report from the United Nations, which alleges that Israel killed over a dozen of its own citizens during the October 7 attacks.
According to the UN, the Israeli military invoked the “Hannibal Directive,” a protocol that supports killing its own soldiers to prevent their capture as hostages, reported the Sun.
On 5 December 2023, Israeli hostages released by Hamas met with Benjamin Netanyahu’s war cabinet and claimed that, during the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel they were deliberately attacked by Israeli helicopters on their way into Gaza, and were shelled constantly by the Israeli military while they were there.
The Hannibal Directive, a term shrouded in mystery and controversy, has garnered significant attention over the years, particularly in the context of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and their operations against groups such as Hamas.
Originating as a military protocol designed to prevent the capture of Israeli soldiers by enemy forces, the directive has been both lauded for its strategic intent and criticized for its ethical implications.
This article delves into the origins, applications, and controversies surrounding the Hannibal Directive, offering a comprehensive understanding of this contentious military strategy.
Origins and Purpose
The Hannibal Directive was reportedly formulated in the mid-1980s, during a period marked by intense conflict between Israel and various militant groups. Its primary objective was to thwart enemy attempts to capture Israeli soldiers, a scenario that the IDF considers highly detrimental due to the potential for such captures to be used as bargaining chips in prisoner exchanges.
Two versions of the Hannibal Directive may have existed simultaneously at times: a written version, accessible only to the upper echelon of the IDF, and an “oral law” version for division commanders and lower levels.
According to one version, it says that “the kidnapping must be stopped by all means, even at the price of striking and harming our own forces”.
In the latter version, “by all means” was often interpreted literally, as in “an IDF soldier was ‘better dead than abducted‘”.
The directive essentially authorizes the use of overwhelming force to prevent the abduction of soldiers, even at the risk of the soldiers’ lives.
According to the directive, once it had been declared by a field officer, Israeli forces were to open fire on enemy forces carrying away an IDF prisoner. Vehicles suspected of removing such a prisoner from the battlefield could thus be attacked, even at the risk of harming, or even killing, the abductee himself. According to some interpretations, this includes even firing missiles from attack helicopters or firing tank shells at suspected escaping vehicles.
The rationale behind this directive is rooted in the belief that the capture of a soldier not only endangers the individual but also poses a significant threat to national security.
In 1999, IDF Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz said in an interview with Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth: “In certain senses, with all the pain that saying this entails, an abducted soldier, in contrast to a soldier who has been killed, is a national problem.“
Captured soldiers can be leveraged by enemy forces to extract concessions from Israel, which could include the release of prisoners or other strategic compromises. By preventing captures at all costs, the Hannibal Directive aims to deter enemy forces from attempting such actions in the first place.
Implementation in Conflict
One of the most notable instances of the Hannibal Directive being invoked occurred during the 2014 Gaza War, also known as Operation Protective Edge. On August 1, 2014, a ceasefire was in place when Hamas militants launched an ambush, killing two Israeli soldiers and capturing another, Second Lieutenant Hadar Goldin. In response, the IDF activated the Hannibal Directive, launching a massive barrage of artillery and airstrikes in the area where Goldin was believed to be held.
The intensity of the Israeli response was unprecedented. According to various reports, hundreds of shells and bombs were dropped on Rafah, the southern Gaza town where the ambush took place. The operation resulted in significant Palestinian casualties and widespread destruction. While the directive’s activation succeeded in preventing Goldin’s capture—his remains were later found and retrieved—it also sparked a fierce debate about the proportionality and morality of the measures employed.
In January 2024, an investigation by Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth concluded that the IDF had in practice applied the Hannibal Directive from noon of October 7, ordering all combat units to stop “at all costs” any attempt by Hamas terrorists to return to Gaza with hostages. According to Yedioth Ahronoth, Israeli soldiers inspected around 70 vehicles on the roads leading to Gaza that had been hit by a helicopter, tank or UAV, killing all occupants in at least some cases.
Controversies and Ethical Dilemmas
The Hannibal Directive has been a lightning rod for controversy, with critics arguing that it places soldiers’ lives at undue risk and leads to excessive use of force that endangers civilians. Human rights organizations and international bodies have condemned the directive, citing incidents where its implementation resulted in high civilian casualties and destruction of property. The 2014 Rafah incident, in particular, drew sharp criticism from the United Nations and various human rights groups.
In a 2023 report, the United Nations accused Israel of committing potential war crimes during the 2014 Gaza conflict, specifically highlighting the use of the Hannibal Directive. The report claimed that the directive led to disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas, a charge that Israel vehemently denies. Israeli officials argue that the directive is a necessary measure in the face of an adversary that routinely targets and captures soldiers as a strategic tactic.
The Military Perspective
From a military standpoint, the Hannibal Directive is seen as a pragmatic response to a difficult and dangerous reality. Israeli military doctrine emphasizes the protection of soldiers, but also recognizes the severe implications of having soldiers captured by hostile forces. The directive is intended to balance these concerns by providing commanders with the authority to use extreme measures to prevent captures.
Proponents of the Hannibal Directive argue that it serves as a deterrent, reducing the likelihood that enemy forces will attempt to capture Israeli soldiers. They point out that the directive is not a blanket authorization for indiscriminate violence but rather a specific protocol to be used under certain conditions. The decision to invoke the directive is typically made at high levels of command and is subject to strict guidelines aimed at minimizing collateral damage.
Legal and Moral Implications
The legal and moral implications of the Hannibal Directive are complex and multifaceted. Under international law, the use of force must be proportional and discriminate, with precautions taken to avoid harm to civilians. Critics argue that the directive’s emphasis on preventing captures at all costs can lead to violations of these principles, especially in densely populated areas like Gaza.
Defenders of the directive contend that it is a necessary evil in the context of asymmetric warfare, where militant groups often operate from within civilian populations and use tactics designed to exploit the legal and moral constraints of conventional military forces. They argue that the directive is an unfortunate but necessary response to the unique challenges posed by such adversaries.
The Broader Context
The Hannibal Directive must be understood within the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a protracted and deeply entrenched struggle marked by cycles of violence, retaliation, and negotiation. The directive reflects the high stakes and difficult choices faced by the IDF in a conflict where the lines between combatants and civilians are often blurred, and where the capture of soldiers can have far-reaching strategic implications.
In the eyes of many Israelis, the Hannibal Directive is a testament to the lengths to which the IDF is willing to go to protect its soldiers and the nation’s security. For Palestinians and international observers, it is often seen as emblematic of the heavy-handed tactics employed by Israel in its military operations, with devastating consequences for civilians.
Conclusion
The Hannibal Directive remains one of the most contentious aspects of Israeli military strategy. Its origins and intent are rooted in the harsh realities of conflict and the need to prevent the capture of soldiers by enemy forces. However, its implementation has led to significant ethical and legal debates, particularly regarding the proportionality and discrimination of force.
As with many aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, perspectives on the Hannibal Directive are deeply polarized. To its proponents, it is a necessary measure to deter enemy actions and protect national security. To its detractors, it is a morally and legally problematic policy that results in unacceptable levels of collateral damage.
Ultimately, the Hannibal Directive underscores the complex and often tragic nature of modern warfare, where the imperative to protect one’s own forces can clash with the principles of humanitarian law and the goal of minimizing harm to civilians. As the debate continues, the Hannibal Directive will likely remain a focal point for discussions about the ethics and conduct of military operations in asymmetric conflicts.
