Talk:Hannibal Directive

Untitled

I have reverted some of the changes since I believe them to be highly misleading. The changes describe the Hannibal directive as “an officially abolished, previously secret directive”. The IDF claims that the original formulation of the directive is no longer in force but not that it has been officially abolished. The IDF spokesman only denies the existence of “a standing order”, which can be interpreted in several ways. The present formulation of how Israeli soldiers are expected to act in a hostage situation is however just as secret as the old one was. It is true that the practice occasionally has been reported in the Israeli press, but there is still, to my knowledge, no public debate on the issue, suggesting that military censorship is still an important factor. It is of course possible that the directive is now effectively abolished and that Israeli soldiers are no longer expected to kill their comrades rather than letting them be kidnapped. All the indications that the directive is still operative then have to be explained as the result of rogue elements within the officer corps of the IDF. Wikipedia however cannot assume that that is really the case and that other interpretations are mistaken. Personally I also find it less than convincing. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Haaretz article from 2003 explicitly uses the word "abolished". Look for yourself. Marokwitz (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You did not read the article carefully. The order was not abolished, it was modified. This is what it says on this point:

According to sources in the IDF, the order was changed in the past year. "During an abduction," the new order states, "the primary mission is to rescue the abducted soldier from his captors." The words "even at the price of harming or wounding our soldiers" were deleted.

"IDF orders stipulate that everything possible, including the use of fire, must be done to stop the abductors and rescue the abductees," the IDF Spokesperson says in a written response to a question from Haaretz. "However, there is an explicit prohibition, for obvious reasons, against opening fire in a way that will certainly, or almost certainly, bring about the death of an abducted soldier. This is based on the understanding that the value of the abducted soldier's life is higher than the price of the abduction."

Some soldiers say that they were briefed about the order in its original version even during the past year. In response, army sources say that "if needed, the procedures will be refreshed for commanding officers and soldiers."

As Yossi Peled explained, it is no longer allowed to drop a 1-ton bomb on an escaping vehicle but it's OK to fire a tank shell at it. If it hasn't been changed again after 2003, that is. We still don't know the exact wording of the directive that is applied today. Maybe it now states that soldiers being captured must commit suicide, as Lt. Col. Shuki Ribak apparently interprets it. We simply don't know.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you explain "Though now officially abolished" in the article title? [1] Marokwitz (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I interpret it just as it clearly says in the article. Before 2002 The order stated that the army should try to kill a captive rather than allowing him to be captured. After 2002 the army may only risk his life, not "certainly, or almost certainly, bring about the death of an abducted soldier". Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And in 2017, it was abolished once and for all.--FeralOink (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Ben-Melech

Marokwitz deleted the entire section on the death of Israeli citizen Yakir Ben-Melech at Erez crossing, claiming that “No reliable source links this with Hannibal Directive”. There is a problem with “reliable sources” in a country were these sources often are prevented from reporting on this sensitive subject by military censorship. The source I had supplied was a report on the Israeli “Ha-Oketz” site, which admittedly does seem to have a clear human rights/peacenik/liberal slant. Which I don’t think should automatically disqualify it as a reliable source.

www.haokets.org/2009/12/08/ידיד-נפש-אב-הרחמן-כך-הרגו-את-יקיר-בן-מלך/

This particular report however was written by independent journalist Meron Rapoport, who used to be head of the news department at Haaretz newspaper, and Prof. Kobi Peterzil of Haifa University. The report clearly claims that Ben-Melech was shot to death under the Hannibal directive. It also cites interviews with Zvi Fogel, the former head of IDF Southern Command, as well as an Israeli radio reporter. I therefor wrote: “There has however been suggestions that the real motive behind the shooting was the Hannibal directive. IDF Southern Command did not want yet another Israeli falling into Hamas' hands.” I think my source more than covers this quite cautious claim. I don’t think that this case is that important, but I do object to Marokwitz efforts to twist the issue of the Hannibal directive to a thing only of the past. I am aware that the Hannibal directive is considered an extremely sensitive issue by the military in Israel. I fail to see any reason why Wikipedia should apply the same attitude.

Any comments?

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source, however I don't object to including as long as clear attribution to the authors is provided, plus a translation of the relevant part for non Hebrew readers. Marokwitz (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please enlighten me because I'm new at Wikipedia. Is it unreliable because Ha-Oketz is a leftist site or because Rapoport/Peterzil are unreliable persons? It seems to me that Arutz 7 and Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs are OK as sources at Wikipedia. My interpretation - which may be wrong - is that Rapoport had tried to have this published in more reliable venue but failed because of censorship.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Both the sources you mentioned are not considered reliable sources for most types of unattributed facts, especially not for controversial statements not confirmed by other sources. They can be used in articles but require clear attribution, and a more objective source is always preferred. This is similar to the IDF spokesperson, their response is notable and can be included with attribution, however under no circumstances should this source be used for unattributed facts. Regarding Ha-Oketz, I am not very familiar with this site but from my research it appears to be a platform for opinions, without much editorial oversight. It is more a blog than a news site. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. So, as I said I think it should be given the same level of validity as we do give sources with a clear agenda such as the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs - with clear inline attribution to the source - to allow the reader make the decision. For further information I refer you to WP:SOURCES. Also please read WP:NOENG. Marokwitz (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a word to be said here of source selectivity. Ha-Oketz, a non WP:RS, says one thing, but more credible sources, Ynet, Channel 10 and Walla (=Haaretz) say otherwise. The man apparently did not say a word and was never recognized as an Israeli subject and possible hostage. A paragpraph that fails to mention that the opinion expressed by a source is at odds with more mainstream sources, has no place in the article. Furthermore, JG, edits should not reflect your interpretations of events, nor your perceptions of the role of Israeli military censorship in Israel. As interesting and well-founded as those may be, that's speculative original research and you may find that other editors disagree with you. Poliocretes (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, point taken. Unless we find some confirmation from other sources, or clear indications that mainstream media is prevented from reporting about the incident, it is probably not true and we leave out.Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Declaring Hannibal directive?

The IDF spokesman denies that the Hannibal directive is a "standing order". Which may well be true in the sense that the directive is not part of IDF rules of engagement. Many reports talk about Hannibal being "declared" or "invoked". This could suggest that the Hannibal procedure has to be ordered by an officer. It would improve this article if someone could sort out this issue. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

So an IDF soldier cannot ever surrender?

Aren't these abductees normally called POWs? Isn't an abduction the same as a surrender? Is it OK for soldiers of other armies to surrender (under certain circumstances)? Isn't this unfair to the individual soldier?--Soylentyellow (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

During my service in IDF in 1998, which included an extensive deployment in South Lebanon, I remember that this order was passed along to us. The motivation for stopping the abduction at any cost was that the irregular forces like hezbollah did not adhere to any international treaties, did not follow established POW exchange procedures and engaged in brutal torture of their captives. Basically, being captured by them was and, to my knowledge, still is considered worse than death. As history shows - with good reason, I'm afraid. 24.37.95.6 (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Origin of the name

The articel states that the Directive was refered to in different names but it dosen't explain where the origin of the name this articel has is from. 2A02:8070:2281:3600:CC60:9DD4:EEAF:57AD (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There are a dozen odd refs. I'm sure it's in one of them if you want to look through them til you find it and then share the info here or in the article. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

According to this [2] (second paragrph)(Reference no. 3 in the article) the name was randomly generatet by a computer. 2A02:8070:2281:3600:4CFD:E0CB:6F7F:AB57 (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, put my money where my mouth is and put it in :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Etymology section

The section The directive currently contains this discussion of the etymology:

Although Israeli officials insist that the directive's name was a random computer-generated designation, many observers do not find this convincing. The historic Carthaginian general Hannibal is said to have preferred suicide by poison, rather than being taken prisoner by his Roman enemies.

However, that paragraph is sort of buried. Would it make sense to move it up or create an etymology section? A counterargument might be that officials deny a historic link, however that's no reason to bury the info: Even if they're right, the discussion of the pros and cons is still informative, and furthermore, the denial and alternative claim of random computer generation still constitute etymological information. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hadar Goldin

Removing material below pending better sourcing.. Although this appeared in an early, online verison of article, it is not in the current version of the NYTimes article.

During protective edge 2014, after soldier Hadar Goldin was kidnapped, the IDF proceeded to bomb the area, and later declared him dead.

.ShulMaven (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Guy Levy

26. July 2014

• http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930511001182
• http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2014/07/26/israel-murders-idf-soldier-to-prevent-his-kidnapping/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by HannibalGo (talk • contribs) 17:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Death via Hannibal Directive

The original mention was removed which had just the NY Times ref. Since then there have been a lot more. Here's just a few: Haaretz; Israel's I24news; IB Times; National Post.

I don't have time in next few days to deal with it but encouraging others to do so. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: Working on this now, I see that at some point the NY Times cleansed this text which someone else originally quoted and which I verified before using it as a ref! On Friday, Israeli forces immediately used a protocol for captured soldiers known as “Operation Hannibal” to pursue the Hamas squad into the tunnel and try to cut off any possibility of escape. Hannibal includes intense pursuit and an option to engage the enemy “even at risk of the soldier,” Colonel Lerner said. Hopefully, other sources haven't done the same! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That text and the non-verifying reference should be self-reverted immediately. There is no RS for this extraordinary claim. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like somebody didn't look at the refs; fixed i24news one. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources, anyone?

Editors of this page who insist that the Hannibal Directive is a "secret protocol" of the IDF are violating basic Wikipedia principles. If there were a reliable source, the directive would not be secret. The only thing that is known for certain is that there are various claims that the protocol exists. Since the 2003 article by Sara Leibovich-Dar, claiming that the the protocol was official between 1986 and 2000 and was then abolished, the claims about the protocol's continued existence are from increasingly biased and unreliable sources. Consequently, I am changing the tone of the article to indicate that there are claims about the protocol's existence, rather than implying that there is reliable, irrefutable evidence.Jdkag (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I know it probably doesn't count for much since it's "original research," but for what it's worth, I didn't even realize this is not the IDF's official policy. I served in the IDF from 2008-2009 and I was instructed by my commanding officer that should a capture occur, we must attempt to stop at all costs. Obviously, the goal is to avoid all casualties. But it was made clear to me that if the only choice is between the captive's death and his capture, his death is preferred. I accepted this as official policy, although this wiki page says the policy died in 2000. Effy Shaf (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Ronen Bergman

From interviews with Ronen Bergman, I get the impression that he does not agree with the version given in Leibovich-Dar's article about the capture of three soldiers in Sheb'a farms / Har Dov in October, 2000. According to her, Israeli helicopters attacked 26 vehicles moving out of the area, to prevent Hizbullah from moving the prisoners. That should have resulted in dozens of casualties. The problem is that I can't find any confirmation of dozens of casualties in Lebanese sources. If there is anybody with access to Bergman's 2009 (Hebrew) book, please check his version and add to the article.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Sabotage

A lot of well-sourced material has been removed from this page since 7 October, a lot by anonymous contributors. I have tried to restore lost material. I will try to fix any remaning problems. Please raise any substantial revisions here on the talk page before making them.Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it is NOT sabotage! You reverted corrected, sourced information that I added as updates, along with multiple other Wikipedia editors. The basis for most of the revisions made by myself and others are indicated in the edit logs. I reverted some of your edits.--FeralOink (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Confusing

The first paragraph of this article seems intentionally misleading: it does not contain the whole core concept of the Hannibal Directive, which is to prevent hostage capture by killing the hostage as a last resort. Without mentioning the kill, the concept is incomplete and therefore misleading. I suggest someone with proper edit rights to fix that. Other parts of the page seem also intentionally worded to confuse the reader. Given that the actor being criticized has a whole propaganda department, this might be intentional. ED3202 (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Removed Quote - Shebaa farms (2000)

With regard to this edit, please User:Jokkmokks-Goran explain why you deleted a sourced quote from the person who invoked the directive? TaBaZzz (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I got confused. Is this OK?

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. TaBaZzz (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Bias in last paragraph of introduction

The last two sentences of the last paragraph of the introduction: "according to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Kibbutz Be'eri was heavily shelled by Israeli forces, who had decided to "eliminate the [Palestinian] terrorists along with the [Israeli] hostages". At least 112 Israelis were killed in the kibbutz."

The second sentence is implied as a direct consequence of the first, which is biased and untrue, blaming Israel rather than Hamas for all Israeli deaths in the kibbutz. One of the sources provided is also from Mondoweiss, which is not a reliable source.

This needs changing and this article needs to be granted extended-protected status. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Haaretz news article source is blocked by a paywall and not in English - it is hence an unideal source. Attempts to find other sources for the quote have only pulled up very unreliable and biased fringe outlets. None of this meets the editorial standards of Wikipedia. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. Haaretz is an excellent source. No hurry, but eventually we will have to deal with the Gaza war. I suspect it will become a major section in this article. Here is the full paragraph in question, with a Google translation, and an accessable link to the original:

“His voice broke when he remembered his partner, who was besieged in a Mamad (safe space) at the time. According to him, only on Monday night and only after the commanders in the field made difficult decisions - including shelling houses on their occupants in order to eliminate the terrorists along with the hostages - did the IDF complete the takeover of the kibbutz The price was terrible: at least 112 Beeri people were killed. Others were kidnapped. Yesterday, 11 days after the massacre, the bodies of a mother and her son were discovered in one of the destroyed houses. It is believed that more bodies are still lying in the rubble.”

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Haaretz is of course a reputable Israeli newspaper, with high editorial standards, however the paywall and foreign language aspects are somewhat a barrier. Mondoweiss is of course far from anything reputable here. There do not seem to be any reputable open-access sources reporting on the Hannibal Directive in this war.

It's possible that there may be a gag order, in Israel, for journalists to report certain details. Perhaps more will become clear on this topic, after the conflict reaches a more conclusive stage and gag orders are lifted. When multiple reliable sources report on exactly how the Hannibal Directive was implemented in the 2023 Israel-Hamas War, there will of course be plenty of work to be done. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Reference checking

I've checked one random reference from the content removed by Marokwitz and restored by Iskandar323 and didn't see any mentions of the Hannibal directive there. Alaexis_¿question? 20:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources that mention the Hannibal Directive are 'Mondoweiss', which is marked under WP:RSP as a known biased source requiring, at minimum, attribution. The second source is "The Cradle", which is not reliable, as noted also by Longhornsg. Following the revert, the sourcing is very poor, and clearly not to the level required by the WP:REDFLAG policy. These claims are especially shaky since the 'Hannibal Directive', as mentioned in the lead, deals with soldiers about to be taken captive and not civilian hostages. There might have been cases of civilians killed by 'friendly fire' due to tactical decisions, but definitely not the 'Hannibal Directive' meant to prevent them from being taken hostage, at least to the level of sourcing required by Wikipedia. Marokwitz (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis Following your reference checking, I continued to verify some other references, and the results were not so good. See the new discussions below. Can you provide your opinion? Marokwitz (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Questionable sentence in the lead

"Among the 11 Israelis involved in the seven reported Hannibal incidents[citation needed], only one soldier (Gilad Shalit) survived" - the source of this sentence in the lead is not clear. Is it verifiable by a reliable source? Marokwitz (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Case of Oron Shaul

I'm trying to verify the sourcing of the article, and many statement seem very strange. In the section "Shuja'iyya (2014)" dedicated to the abduction of the body of Oron Shaul, the article reads, "It is unclear whether Shaul was captured alive or dead, or whether the Hannibal Directive was invoked." Is there any source that indicates this case belongs in the section "Incidents where the directive was invoked"? Marokwitz (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

If there is uncertainty about the claims of a source it could be included as long as this uncertainty is explained in the text.Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Another very questionable case

The article contains :

In 2009, Israeli civilian Yakir Ben-Melech was shot dead by Israeli security guards while trying to enter the Gaza Strip from Israel, by jumping the fence at the Erez crossing. He was a mental patient of Yehuda Abarbanel Mental Health Center, who apparently, according to family members, wanted to contact Hamas, so as to secure the release of Israeli captive Gilad Shalit. According to Shlomo Saban, director of the Erez crossing, several warning shots have been fired, after which the man was shot in the leg, an injury that has caused extensive loss of blood and eventually led to his death. In an interview on Israeli radio, a claim has been made that the Hannibal procedure was rumored to be declared and Ben-Melech was shot to death when he refused to stop. Former Chief of Staff of the Southern Command, Brig.-Gen. Zvika Fogel opined in the interview: "We can't afford now any soul mate of Gilad Shalit". Apparently, Ben-Melech was killed, not by IDF soldiers, but by members of a private security firm, responsible for security at the Erez gate

This story makes little sense, as the killing was not carried out by the IDF but by a private security guard. Moreover, the person killed was not a soldier. Reliable sources state that he was killed for failing to identify himself and for jumping the security gate, after 15 warning shots were fired. Therefore, claiming this incident as a case of the "Hannibal Directive" seems very far-fetched.

The only sources supporting this claim are "Haoketz", which cites a discussion on Israeli radio with a retired General. This discussion, as stated in the interview (which was not a news segment), involved chatting and making speculations, rather than presenting news. Additionally, the claim cites a book by Max Blumenthal, a known critic of Israel and an obviously opinionated source. Avi Benlolo, CEO of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, reviewed this book and noted, "While shunned by conventional media outlets, the book is popular on major anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi, and conspiracy theory websites such as Stormfront and David Duke's Rense, where his work is used to promote anti-Jewish hate." This book hardly qualifies as a reliable source for facts.

The report was written by independent journalist Meron Rapoport, who used to be head of the news department at Haaretz newspaper, and Prof. Kobi Peterzil of Haifa University. The report clearly claims that Ben-Melech was shot to death under the Hannibal directive. It also cites interviews with Zvi Fogel, the former head of IDF Southern Command, as well as an Israeli radio reporter. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Rapoport is a prize-winning journalist no less, so indeed exceptional. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Considering these points, I think this should be removed per WP:REDFLAG. It appears to border on conspiracy theory, and the sourcing is incredibly weak. Marokwitz (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, the sourcing here is not particularly strong. The guy who said it on the radio didn't have any connection with the accident and was speculating. The question is to what extent this can be considered an exceptional claim. I think that this section can be made shorter and the attribution made clearer. Alaexis_¿question? 15:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I hope I misunderstand Alaexis's position. He can't seriously maintain that every item in Wikipedia articles need “official [Israeli] confirmation”. [[3]]Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

An exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. The claim is exceptional because the Hannibal Directive does not apply to civilians; it is intended to stop hostage takers. In this situation, there were no hostage takers. The person who breached the border was shot in the leg for failing to identify themselves and breaching a border, leading to them being shot as suspects. This situation meets none of the definitions of the Hannibal Directive.

The only source we have here is a retired general with no knowledge about the situation stating his opinion on a radio show. Marokwitz (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

As the article makes very clear, it is very difficult for Wikipedia editors to acertain what the Hannibal procedure actually encompassed at different times, due to Israeli censorship, disinformation, etc. If there is uncertainty about the claims of some sources, it should be expressed in the text, citing other more reliable sources. Not deleted.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 02

30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no need for Wikipedia editors to acertain anything. All we need to do is follow the policy, that requires multiple high-quality sources for RED FLAG claims. Currently, this article is failing miserably by relying on extremely poor sources that only say "allegedly" and "reportedly". No high quality news organization such as the New York Times or The Guardian has published this speculation. Marokwitz (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

If you find that sources are less than credible you are supposed to tag this and encourage editors to improve. You are not supposed to just delete everything not to your liking. This article is almost ENTIRELY based on bona fide main stream Israeli sources. Maybe you should accept that in this case - because of Israeli military censorship - not everything can be found in Israeli main stream media.Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems that you don't understand our rules on verifiability. WP:REDFLAG says that any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources "is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them" which is exactly what you are doing here.

Per WP:BURDEN burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Therefore, unless credible reliable sources are presented, the content is required to be removed. Marokwitz (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It is really strange, this decade-long campaign to remove the Erez Crossing episode from this article. During all this time, the episode has been part of the Hebrew article about Hannibal Directive. And to my knowledge, there has been no objections to it. The article's only source has been the Oketz-article. How come? I suppose the average Israeli reader knows more about the subject and is more familiar with the Oketz magazine and the two writers of the article. Adding to their credibility, they interview two knowledgable observers, Kol Yisrael Southern Israel reporter Nissim Kenan and former Chief of Staff of the Southern Command, Brig.-Gen. Zvika Fogel. Both confirm that the Hannibal Directive was enacted in this episode. What more do you need? I have also added an article by British/Israeli journalist Jonathan Cook making the same claim. And Max Blumenthal's book also confirming the Hannibal story. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

In the October 7 attack?

There are reports of a forward base commander ordering his own position bombarded when it was overrun by Hamas fighters killing IDF personnel on the surface (he was safely in a bunker), and Israeli police and military firing indiscriminately at hostages+Hamas fighters and on vehicles/houses containing hostages+Hamas fighters - could this constitute the Hannibal Directive and indicate it is still in effect or at least within the thinking of officials? LamontCranston (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

What exactly do you suggest to change in the article? Alaexis_¿question? 21:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This is an isolated suggestion and perhaps not intended to be taken literally. In any case, it couldn't possibly apply, since even when Hannibal Directive was in effect, it was only for soldiers, or at least military personnel, not civilians. It seems more likely that the cars and motorcycles were being targeted with some effort to avoid hitting the hostages (and hence they survived).

One twitter comment now warrants the inclusion into the article?Drsruli (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The quoted source is merely using Hannibal to describe the situation of shooting mass on abductions and endangering hostages; it's not saying that this was actually a case of Hannibal Directive, it's just a comparison. The source is misrepresented in our article. Drsruli (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Perceived implementation during the 2023 war

There is something fishy about this section. Secondary sources refer to Haaretz but I can't find anything similar in Haaretz itself. Does Lieut. Col. Nof Erez even exist? I believe this section will grow by time but right now it feels very shaky. Maybe we should wait until we know more? Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Col. Nof Erez is a real person, an IDF Air Force pilot who was fired from his reserve service after calling for the removal of the Prime Minister. An interview with him was published as a podcast on Haaretz' Hebrew homepage:

https://www.haaretz.co.il/digital/podcast/weekly/2023-11-09/ty-article-podcast/0000018b-b3a5-d3c1-a39b-bfe55acb0000

The Middle East Eye Website posted a translation of (parts of) the interview on Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjRqAJYDUg

A longer translated clip is found here:

https://www.redressonline.com/2023/11/israeli-officer-admits-air-force-killed-palestinian-and-israeli-civilians-in-line-with-hannibal-directive/

I can't tell for sure, but the translations seems OK.

But, it's unclear if he actually witnessed any of the events he is describing or is just making a synthesis of what he has heard and his own guestimates.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Erez is a real person who was one of the most prominent pilots against the judicial reform bill. He was dismissed after violating an army order for serving pilots not to make political statements.[4]

That said, it beggars belief that a low-ranking reserve pilot (not a flag officer) who ended his (reserve) military career under acrimonious circumstances would somehow have access into high-level decisionmaking in the heat of battle, that conveniently no mainstream RS, including RS that regularly report out on internal Israeli military decisionmaking, have reported on, especially about a directive that was officially rescinded almost a decade ago. It makes sense that the only places reporting this incendiary claim are strongly biased and non-news sites like Electronic Intifada and Al-Mayadeen. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, we need to see multiple mainstream RS claim this.

Sounds to be like Erez is a disaffected person spouting nonsense to get media coverage. Longhornsg (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe the 7/10 included a massive friendly-fire component. There are many small pieces of credible evidence but no source giving the full picture. Whether it was also a Mass Hannibal event, that is, an intentional component in this killing, is less certain. If this really was the case, we will eventually know. During the war, IDF can cover things like this up. But in Israel it is impossible to hide something like this for ever.

I think it's a good idea not to let this section baloon in the near future and to be extra careful with our sources.

I think, however, that we can keep the Haaretz interview with Nof Erez. Haaretz is a reliable source. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The section isn't well sourced. One of the sources is a Ynet article about a conversation between released Israeli hostages and Prime Minister Netanyahu, in which they say they were scared of bombings in Gaza during the war, but that does not concern the Hannibal Directive, as they were already in captivity. They mention a helicopter shelling near them on their way to Gaza on October 7, but the source does not claim that this was an implementation of the Hannibal Directive, only a possible friendly fire.

Then, the section states that "[a]ccording to some commentators, this was an implementation of the Directive on Israeli civilians", which cites questionable source "Brave New Europe". The article contains an interview with Max Blumenthal, the editor of The Grayzone, in which he claims that most Israeli casualties on October 7 were caused by the IDF's Hannibal Directive. It's worth noting that The Grayzone is listed as deprecated source for its lack of reliability. Blumenthal's claims about the October 7 attack have been heavily criticized: Masterclass in Manipulation: Exposing Max Blumenthal's Lies About Israel and October 7.

There is also the interview with Lieut. Col. Nof Erez, which has some issues that have been mentioned in this thread.

It seems that there are reliable sources about friendly fire on October 7, but labelling it as an implementation of the Hannibal Directive is pure speculation. It's even titled "perceived implementation", because it's a conjecture. The section also appears to contradict the rest of the article, which claims that the doctrine had been revoked in 2016 and used to apply only to captured soldiers, not civilians. Alex98 (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

There are several less than solid sources in this section. I think it's ok to tag them as such. Just don't provoke me or other wikipedians by just deleting them. Behind them are much better Israeli sources. I'm myself reluctant to spend much time and effort on the issue, because I'm not convinced that this is a real "Hannibal" event. But please feel free to do it your self.

There is no problem having sections of "near-Hannibals" or "not-Hannibals" in this article. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree with User:Alex98. This section is very poorly sourced and even more poorly written. More importantly, according to reliable sources, it is predicated on dangerous conspiracy theories and denial—not ideas an encyclopedia is meant to promote as fact. See this Haaretz report: "Conspiracy Theories and Lies: Denial of Hamas' October 7 Massacre Is Gaining Pace Online".

Excerpts from the article:

• Like other fake news campaigns, these theories rely on snippets of evidence while completely ignoring anything that contradicts them. One video that went viral claims that all the deaths at Kibbutz Be’eri were the work of Israeli tanks that lost control and simply shelled houses.
• The video relies on isolated comments in the media – in a few cases, the army really did have to shell houses where terrorists had barricaded themselves a few days into the war. And it wasn't clear if Israeli civilians were inside.
• As is typical, this video relies on one statement, in this case a comment on the radio by a survivor who said that hostages at Be’eri were shot by the army.
• The deniers completely ignore the plethora of videos and photos showing that Hamas murdered Israelis and burned their houses. The conspiracy theorists highlight the minority of cases in which Hamas left hostages alive, with the deniers concluding that the army killed its own citizens and that Hamas actually acted humanely.
• Many conspiracy theorists say the army simply followed instructions under the famous Hannibal Directive, which the army under then-Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot canceled in 2016. In certain situations, the directive allowed the endangering of a soldier's life in order to prevent an abduction.
• Somehow the misperception has taken root of "unwritten permission" to let soldiers be killed so that they aren’t taken prisoner, but the army has reiterated that this is false.
• The conspiracy theories have largely been spread by social media users abroad, notably thenames_ahmad, Max Blumenthal and Jackson Hinkle. Some Israelis are slowly following suit. For example, one Israeli X user caused a stir this week by claiming that only about 400 people were killed – and not massacred – on October 7. He repeated the crossfire and Hannibal Directive myths.

This section, as written, cites these very sources as fact. This needs to be revised to comply with WP standards. --Precision123 (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

This entire wikipedia section is being used by pro-Hamas protestors to spread the lie that Israel did October 7th all by itself, to its own people, and denies that Hamas was ever involved. 2603:8002:1801:5FE1:4CFD:E190:F220:ABB7 (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems like extended confirmed users have reached a consensus that poorly-sourced sections are acceptable for this article. Bernsteinnn (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Sentence that repeats itself under "Perceived implementation during the 2023 war"

In the "Perceived implementation during the 2023 war" section, in the beginning of the second paragraph "was killed on October 7 was killed by IDF tank rounds." It's extended protection but I did want to put the double "was killed" mistake out there. TWalker1993B (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Alaexis_¿question? 20:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

“According to some commentators, this was an implementation of the Directive on Israeli civilians.”

This is a misrepresentation of the source. The source is making a comparison in context, a kind of hyperbole, and the implication is not literal. Drsruli (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

No source saying it was used only until 2016

The first sentence says it was used until 2016, without a source proving it is no longer in use. As both sources say, after its content had been entirely leaked, it was merely replaced with a new directive whose content is unknown, but which may be very similar to the previous one. An unbiased first sentence, then, could be attained by simply adding the words “at least”, as in “at least until 2016”, instead of affirming “until 2016”. 2A00:A041:3B9C:BF00:6D94:D9B1:DE33:70E6 (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Plenty of RS report the cancellation in 2016. We go by what RS say. It's ridiculous to suggest that there needs to be a source proving the counter-factual that it's no longer in use. [5], [6], [7]

But in that case, there's RS discussing the replacement of the Hannibal Directive in 2017: [8] [9] Longhornsg (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Exactly, the Israeli source given [10] explicitly says that, just like the Hannibal directive, the new orders that replaced it “allow soldiers to use potentially massive amounts of force to prevent a soldier from falling into the hands of the enemy. This includes the possibility of endangering the life of the soldier in question in order to prevent his capture.” This bit of information naturally needs to be in the article, which as it is now falsely makes it seem like the controversial policy was simply stopped in 2016, when the policy itself seems to be in essence the same, just no longer called “Hannibal directive”. 2A02:14F:178:35E2:2889:498B:4D8F:F2CE (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. If the sources say that upon its public “revocation” the directive it was immediately replaced by a new protocol that continues to “allow soldiers to use potentially massive amounts of force to prevent a soldier from falling into the hands of the enemy. This includes the possibility of endangering the life of the soldier in question in order to prevent his capture.”, this information obviously needs to be in the article introduction. 177.34.76.66 (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Israeli right-wing newspaper confirms the doctrine is still in use, and was used on October 7th

From the right-wing Yediot Ahronot, today: “At noon on October 7, the IDF ordered all of its combat units in activity to use the 'Hannibal Directive', although without clearly mentioning this explicit name. The order was to stop 'at all costs' any attempt by Hamas terrorists to return to Gaza, that is despite the fear that some of them have hostages. It is estimated that about a thousand terrorists and infiltrators were killed in the area between the Otaf settlements and the Gaza Strip. It is not clear at this time how many of the hostages were killed due to the activation of this command. In the week after the attack, soldiers of elite units checked about 70 vehicles that were left in the area between the Otaf settlements and the Gaza Strip. These are vehicles that did not reach Gaza, because on the way they were shot by combat helicopters, anti-tank missiles or tanks, and at least in some cases everyone in the vehicle was killed.” Source: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/yokra13754368 So our Wikipedia article on the Hannibal directive not only needs this info added to the section about the use of the directive in the 2023 Hamas attack, but the lead sentence also needs editing as it has been shown here (and also in the above discussion, with a quote from a different Israeli newspaper) that the Hannibal doctrine is still in use, just no longer with this name. 2A02:14F:1FC:A2BB:65A6:E2:DFBD:C13E (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The article clearly describes the order, and that order is not an implementation of the Hannibal Directive, which also has a clear definition. (Indeed, this is why the term "Hannibal Directive" was not used.) The statement of the paper can only be construed as a kind of comparison, and not to be taken literally. Drsruli (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The source we have literally says “ At noon on October 7, the IDF ordered all of its combat units in activity to use the 'Hannibal Directive', although without clearly mentioning this explicit name.” The order given is clearly the same as the Hannibal directive. A different newspaper, Times of Israel, also says the directive was never revoked, they just put in its place a new one with the same content but no fancy title. So these are what our sources say. You may interpret it differently, but in Wikipedia, we have to go with the sources, otherwise the article is biased / giving false information, as is the case now. 2A02:14F:1FC:4128:2D79:22A8:45A5:C4CC (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

When a statement contains an obvious contradiction or more, then that’s a tip-off that it’s not meant literally. Taken literally, it makes no sense. Drsruli (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the above user in that all Israeli sources indicate the Hannibal directive is still used - today Haaretz says it, the third Israeli newspaper in one week: https://archive.ph/Mn6MD - and yet, Wikipedia in English insists on being the only source defending it was completely revoked. If left-leaning and right-leaning sources say it was used in October, and if the Times of Israel from 2016 said that upon revocation it was immediately replaced by a new protocol that continued to “allow soldiers to use potentially massive amounts of force to prevent a soldier from falling into the hands of the enemy. This includes the possibility of endangering the life of the soldier in question in order to prevent his capture.”, it obviously needs to be in the article lead. 177.34.76.66 (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

1. It was completely revoked. This is a fact. (Except that any military may, under some circumstances, determine to follow a similar philosophy in making a similar strategic decision, case by case, as has always been the case.)

2. It only ever applied to soldiers, by definition; never to civilians. If the army is firing on allied civilians for some reason, it cannot be called “The Hannibal Directive”, since the directive never applied to civilians in any form.

Therefore, any mention of The Hannibal Directive in connection with civilian deaths, can only be for purposes of illustration, hyperbolically, and cannot be intended literally. Drsruli (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Doubling

at the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive#Shebaa_farms_(2000) word too much "might might" which I don't have the rights to correct.--Buster Baxter (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)