“Nonetheless, The Truth is The Truth. As Aaron Mate put it in a recent piece, “under the Hannibal doctrine, Israel’s aim was to kill its own people rather than let them be traded in a future exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons.” OK, sure, that’s not exactly what the so-called “Hannibal directive” is about, at least…
“Nonetheless, The Truth is The Truth. As Aaron Mate put it in a recent piece, “under the Hannibal doctrine, Israel’s aim was to kill its own people rather than let them be traded in a future exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons.” OK, sure, that’s not exactly what the so-called “Hannibal directive” is about, at least not according to the IDF as quoted by Haaretz in 2014 … 'rather, it is the suspension of safety procedures which normally prohibit firing in the general direction of an IDF soldier, specifically firing to stop an escaping vehicle.'”
. . .
Why quote Haaretz from 2014? Why not not from 2024? Here's some quotes from Haaretz's July 7th article, “IDF Ordered Hannibal Directive on October 7 to Prevent Hamas Taking Soldiers Captive” But, the headline is misleading. if you actually read trhough the article, a “Mass Hannibal” was ordered on both Israeli soldiers AND civilians: https://archive.is/iAgIy#selection-1645.0-1645.502
“At 10:32 A.M. … all battalions in the area were ordered to fire mortars in the direction of the Gaza Strip. … would endanger them [kidnapped civilians] as well. … Some of these were in open areas or in woods along the border, trying to hide from the terrorists.”
“Another order given at 11:22 A.M., according to which no vehicle would be allowed to return to Gaza, took this a step further. "Everyone knew by then that such vehicles could be carrying kidnapped civilians or soldiers," … everyone knew what it meant to not let any vehicles return to Gaza .... it was entirely clear what that message meant, and what the fate of some of the kidnapped people would be. ... a procedure known in the army as the "Hannibal procedure.”
“... at 2:00 P.M. ... At that point, the border area was under intense fire, directed at anyone in that area, making it a danger zone. "The instruction," says the source in Southern Command, "was meant to turn the area around the border fence into a killing zone...”
One case in which it is known that civilians were hit, a case that received wide coverage, took place in the house of Pessi Cohen at Kibbutz Be'eri. 14 hostages were held in the house as the IDF attacked it, with 13 of them killed [killed by tank fire on the direct order of Gen Hiram even after he was told by a hostage others were still in the house].
So, it's clear the Hannibal Doctrine has been “upgraded” since 2014. Aaron Mate's claim that “Israel’s aim was to kill its own people rather than let them be traded in a future exchange for Palestinian prisoners” certainly appears to be backed up by facts.
UPDATE: Three hours ago, "Gilgamechit" asked: “would be fair if you responded to the [7/07/24] Haaretz report itself, at least as a preamble to what is otherwise a strawman argument against the likes of Aaron Mate ...”
CJ Hopkins replied: "I thought it was a good article."
After writing my above comment, I realized that C.J. was largely writing satire and trying to ridicule the propaganda of "both sides"? By writing my comments to his essay, I now feel like I was playing the "straight man" in a comedy sketch.
“Nonetheless, The Truth is The Truth. As Aaron Mate put it in a recent piece, “under the Hannibal doctrine, Israel’s aim was to kill its own people rather than let them be traded in a future exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons.” OK, sure, that’s not exactly what the so-called “Hannibal directive” is about, at least not according to the IDF as quoted by Haaretz in 2014 … 'rather, it is the suspension of safety procedures which normally prohibit firing in the general direction of an IDF soldier, specifically firing to stop an escaping vehicle.'”
. . .
Why quote Haaretz from 2014? Why not not from 2024? Here's some quotes from Haaretz's July 7th article, “IDF Ordered Hannibal Directive on October 7 to Prevent Hamas Taking Soldiers Captive” But, the headline is misleading. if you actually read trhough the article, a “Mass Hannibal” was ordered on both Israeli soldiers AND civilians: https://archive.is/iAgIy#selection-1645.0-1645.502
“At 10:32 A.M. … all battalions in the area were ordered to fire mortars in the direction of the Gaza Strip. … would endanger them [kidnapped civilians] as well. … Some of these were in open areas or in woods along the border, trying to hide from the terrorists.”
“Another order given at 11:22 A.M., according to which no vehicle would be allowed to return to Gaza, took this a step further. "Everyone knew by then that such vehicles could be carrying kidnapped civilians or soldiers," … everyone knew what it meant to not let any vehicles return to Gaza .... it was entirely clear what that message meant, and what the fate of some of the kidnapped people would be. ... a procedure known in the army as the "Hannibal procedure.”
“... at 2:00 P.M. ... At that point, the border area was under intense fire, directed at anyone in that area, making it a danger zone. "The instruction," says the source in Southern Command, "was meant to turn the area around the border fence into a killing zone...”
One case in which it is known that civilians were hit, a case that received wide coverage, took place in the house of Pessi Cohen at Kibbutz Be'eri. 14 hostages were held in the house as the IDF attacked it, with 13 of them killed [killed by tank fire on the direct order of Gen Hiram even after he was told by a hostage others were still in the house].
So, it's clear the Hannibal Doctrine has been “upgraded” since 2014. Aaron Mate's claim that “Israel’s aim was to kill its own people rather than let them be traded in a future exchange for Palestinian prisoners” certainly appears to be backed up by facts.
UPDATE: Three hours ago, "Gilgamechit" asked: “would be fair if you responded to the [7/07/24] Haaretz report itself, at least as a preamble to what is otherwise a strawman argument against the likes of Aaron Mate ...”
CJ Hopkins replied: "I thought it was a good article."
After writing my above comment, I realized that C.J. was largely writing satire and trying to ridicule the propaganda of "both sides"? By writing my comments to his essay, I now feel like I was playing the "straight man" in a comedy sketch.
Thanks for that.