The Israeli military’s Hannibal Directive, a controversial policy aimed at preventing the capture of Israeli soldiers at any cost, has come under scrutiny once again during the recent bombardment of Gaza. The directive, also known as the Hannibal Procedure or Hannibal Protocol, allows for the use of maximum force, even if it risks killing a captive soldier. While Israel claims to have suspended the directive in 2016, echoes of its implementation can still be seen in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine.
Yehuda Shaul, a co-founder of the Israeli NGO Breaking the Silence and a former Israeli soldier, sheds light on the directive’s origins and its implications. During his time in the military from 2001 to 2004, Shaul experienced the violence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict firsthand. It was during his service at the border with Lebanon that he first learned about the Hannibal Directive, which was aimed at preventing the capture of Israeli soldiers by enemy forces. The directive allows soldiers to use force without constraints, including firing at abductors and the surrounding area, even if it risks the life of a captive soldier.
While the Israeli military denies that the directive permits the killing of their own troops, soldiers like Shaul have understood it as a license to do just that. The directive has never been officially published in its entirety, and its legality under international law is highly controversial. Critics argue that it violates the right to life, even for captured soldiers. The origins of the directive’s name are also disputed, with some claiming it is named after a Carthaginian general while Israeli military officials state that it was randomly generated by a computer.
The directive was created in 1986 after three Israeli soldiers were captured by Hezbollah in Lebanon. It was a response to the perceived failure of Israeli soldiers to prevent the abduction. The return of the captured soldiers’ remains 10 years later in a prisoner exchange highlighted the strategic value of soldier abductions for the enemy. This led to Israel’s hardline stance on preventing future abductions, even if it meant resorting to significant force.
During the 2014 bombardment of the Gaza Strip, the directive was put into practice once again after Hamas captured an Israeli officer. Israel unleashed deadly firepower on Rafah, resulting in the deaths of numerous civilians. The use of such brute force was seen as a way for Israel to gain an upper hand and prevent the perceived humiliation of a soldier’s capture. However, the episode caused disquiet within Israel, with some soldiers questioning the army’s actions.
While the directive is believed to have been revoked in 2016, its echoes can still be seen in Israel’s current assault on Gaza. Instead of negotiating with Hamas to release captives, Israel has chosen to employ the use of force, leading to widespread destruction and loss of life. The current assault already surpasses the previous deadliest ones in 2008 and 2014, further raising concerns about Israel’s approach.
The controversy surrounding the Hannibal Directive has been largely hidden from the Israeli public due to military censorship. While it has garnered international attention and criticism, many soldiers, including Shaul, initially saw the policy as necessary for their own safety. The lack of transparency surrounding military operations makes it difficult to know how other militaries handle similar situations, but most states claim to not negotiate with abductors, particularly those deemed “terrorists.”
As the conflict between Israel and Palestine continues, the Hannibal Directive serves as a reminder of the complexities and moral dilemmas faced by soldiers on the battlefield. While it is important to prioritize the safety of soldiers, questions remain about the legality and ethical implications of such a policy. The international community continues to monitor the situation closely, urging a peaceful resolution to the ongoing conflict.
