Haaretz: IDF Ordered Hannibal Directive on October 7 to Prevent Hamas Taking Soldiers Captive
On July 7th, an investigation in @haaretzcom confirmed that the Israeli Defense Forces used the infamous Hannibal Directive 9 months earlier, on 10/7
1/23
The Hannibal Directive is a "controversial" protocol whereby the IDF can "prioritize" stopping terrorists over the lives of soldiers they may have captured. Speculation of its use on 10/7 has been rife, especially since a @ynetnews report in January:
The Hannibal Directive has always only applied to soldiers, and even so doesn't allow for intentionally killing them. What Haaretz revealed are three situations where they knew they were likely to be killing soldiers and probably also endangered or killed civilians.
3/23
In the chaos of 10/7 someone, who remains unknown, gave the order that "Not a single vehicle can return to Gaza"
While the extent of kidnapping was then unknown, according to the description by Yaniv Kubovich, everyone knew the order meant firing on IDF soldiers.
4/23
What this investigation shows is that the order went out from the highest level and down throughout military command.
While it is true we don't know how many they killed, or what ratio of Israeli soldiers were killed by the IDF, it is obviously an unacceptable number.
5/23
While you can see from Haaretz and those internal links that this has been greatly discussed in Israel, there has been a media blackout on the Hannibal Directive in the Western press, not even covering Israel's biggest stories.
Even their "very senior" IDF source does not know where the order came from, but of course, it did come from somewhere. It is my view that PM Netanyahu, DM Gallant, and IDF Chief of Staff Halevi would have to agree.
Will anyone be held accountable?
7/23
The Hannibal Directive was repealed a number of years ago and replaced with an unknown protocol.
This is the big scoop from Haaretz: this is the first evidence I've seen that they used the word "Hannibal," giving a direct order to drone strike an IDF position.
8/23
Hannibal Orders went on for hours at multiple locations. It is not clear to me what that order to make sure no one was outdoors because they were entering means, but a senior official acknowledges that they knew at the time they might kill their own people
9/23
Here we get a name, Rosenfeld, and again the claim that their intelligence was terrible, so they wildly fired mortars at Gaza. Then they decided no vehicle could return to Gaza, which of course put anyone in those vehicles, including civilians, at grave risk.
10/23
They say there was no case where such a vehicle was "knowingly" attacked, but they knew what they were doing. Then, they issued a "kill anything that moves" order for the border fence. How many IDF and civilians were killed at this stage?
11/23
We need to step back here and note that "Hannibal Directive" became shorthand for such actions, but the actual directive doesn't allow any of it. The IDF's chief ethicist, a specialist in justifying unethical behavior, has been horrified:
The IDF launched artillery all over the border area, including near Israeli communities, in order to stop these vehicles from returning, but claims it is "not aware" of any civilians harmed in these bombings.
Note that they don't claim it is Hamas in this picture
13/23
Now we reach Kibbutz Be'eri / Pessi Cohen House, the most infamous instance, where they knowingly struck a house full of hostages. This was never in any way authorized by the Hannibal Directive. They note that this seems to just be how the IDF was operating that day.
14/23
"As far as Haaretz knows" even at 9:33 PM, more than 15 hours after the attack began, there was still a free fire order, for "anyone" approaching the border, without restrictions, which of course could mean disoriented Israeli civilians or soldiers
15/23
For its part, the IDF won't even pledge to prosecute wrongdoing, they will simply look at all of this in terms of what it tells them about how to better war against the Palestinians in the future. How will that possibly satisfy the public?
16/23
From 10/7 there has been something wrong with Israel's messaging. I was somewhat slow to get there, but it became apparent over time that they knew they had created unacceptable civilian casualties, and thus had to maintain a frenetic cycle of accusations.
17/23
To again use one of my favorite quotes, this has been Israel's position:
“Only innocent people can afford long-term plans. Flagrant guilt requires audacity. And we have accomplices who share our danger.” - Gaius Silius [Tacitus, Annals, XI.26]
18/23
We were told it was anti-semitic to say Israel caused many casualties. Further, that Hannibal has been repealed and never applied to civilians...both of which are true, but they implemented it anyway. The people who made the accusation against Israel were correct:
19/23
Perhaps the IDF's decision can be justified from a military perspective once they were in the situation they were in, but clearly they don't think it can be justified in domestic or international public opinion. However, the truth will come out one way or another.
20/23
It remains a mistake to try to put percentages on how Israelis were killed on 10/7, but we can be sure, from this and other reporting of the last 9 months, that a substantial amount of Israeli soldiers and civilians were killed by the IDF's panicked response.
21/23
More than anything, what we get from this Haaretz article is that they did literally order a Hannibal Directive, multiple times, by name, not just a similar order.
Who authorized Hannibal Directives on 10/7? Israel, and the world, must know.
-30-
22/23
Thank you for reading. Please consider following me here and subscribing to my newsletter for more of the world's most interesting and controversial stories.
I have been on a bit of a break due to a newborn, but am rapidly getting back to work
Thank you to everyone who has helped set the record straight about 10/7: @MaxBlumenthal @aaronjmate @KitKlarenberg @snarwani @scotthortonshow @AntiwarNews @KyleAnzalone_ @caitoz @AsaWinstanley @MarkAmesExiled @AbbyMartin @dancohen3000 @SarcasmStardust @patmacfarlane_ @intifada
dammit I forgot to say
"Thread 🪡"
Oh well, people surely get the idea from 1/23
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A new Times of London investigation "Israel says Hamas weaponised rape. Does the evidence add up?" confirms a complete lack of evidence of the systematic use of sexual violence on 10/7
Thread 🪡
H/T @zei_squirrel for noticing this story
1/25
As you read this story, keep in mind that many seemingly reasonable and generally respectable people who believe both Hamas and Likud are bad completely bought this story and called us rape apologists and anti-semites for being correct
This has been a key part of this entire matter, there is only one person who has directly made the claim of sexual assault. Also typos happen to all of us, I feel bad for them it was their first caption.
@nytimes: "The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin" exposes large, hostile US spy network aimed at Russia. Admits US was preparing a "Beachhead" against Putin in Ukraine, and it is part of why Russia chose to invade
The New York Times, of course, is the arbiter of "acceptable" discourse. It is no longer a "conspiracy theory" that the CIA was using Ukraine against Russia for years. They heavily frame this, uncritically trusting US/Ukr spooks and acting like it is all noble
2/25
It starts at an underground CIA funded spybase, where they are helping direct explosive drones towards the Russian city of Rostov, IE an act of war against Russia. This partnership is the "linchpin" in Ukr's ability to defend itself
A stunning investigation from YnetNews, Israel's largest news website titled "The First Hours of Black Saturday" makes an enormous accusation: panicked IDF leadership issued a "Hannibal Directive" causing mass civilian casualties.
This report has been completely ignored in English language media, but in reality it is the most serious accusation I have ever seen a major newspaper make against the government under which it operates. It must be read and understood.
2/10
Asa Kasher, the architect of the IDF's Code of Ethics, said that the Hannibal Directive never authorized the knowing killing of Israelis, calling such accusations, "Unlawful, Unethical, and Horrifying"
The YNet News "7 Days" Report "The First Hours of Black Saturday" paints a devastating picture of incompetence, panic, and, ultimately, extreme disregard for the lives of Israeli civilians by the IDF
There will be serious domestic repercussions for Israel's government
🪡
1/25
Note: This was published in Hebrew, which I do not read. I used Yandex's auto-translate which is imperfect. Twitter seems to be suppressing the link and the page seems poorly programmed. I had to use Brave to make it work.
You can form whatever opinion you want about the quality of this reporting, but YNet is a major Israeli publication that employs top quality investigators. According to YNet, Israel issued a Hannibal Directive- on civilians- killing an unknown number
It's sad that what was once America's newspaper of record, the New York Times, has been bought off with Putin's oil money and is now pushing copium for Russian Nazi propagandists.
The shortage of equipment is so acute they are cutting into year old destroyed armor, having already salvaged all the good parts and now just getting the bare metal:
2/15
This is what I have been saying the whole time, that every Ukraine stooge cannot understand. It is not a matter of who is better or worse or even what works and what doesn't: Russia can do this indefinitely, and Ukraine cannot. The end.
I have finished volume 2 of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, which includes book 4 on colonialism and the mercantile system, and book 5 on government revenue.
This is really an incredible text that should be read by everyone
1/15
Though on political economy, it is a mistake for Wealth of Nations to be limited to the study of economics, as in reality it covers the most important aspects of human affairs and government.
In our unenlightened times, too few are familiar with the whole text
2/15
Smith makes several important comments about colonialism, which greatly contradict what is commonly believed. The first is that Europe was never overpopulated- a view also thoroughly explained by Montesquieu- and no one thought it was at the time