Haaretz confirms: IDF Ordered Hannibal Directive on October 7

[Aren 965]

Haaretz is not the most respected Israeli newspaper, it’s considered the biggest joke lol

[Didymus 34,380]

39 minutes ago, Ronlop said:

I agree that the term "self-defense" in this context isn't accurate. I was referring more to the rationale behind that decision, not its legality or morality.

You even mentioned it in the OP, it is "a highly controversial procedure created by the Israeli army to prevent the kidnapping of soldiers." This directive would not have been enacted if the perpetrators had not initiated the attack. The IDF's actions were aimed at preventing these abductions from occurring. 

In cases where innocent civilians were killed by the IDF as a result of this directive, it reflects poor decision-making by local commanders and a disproportionate response stemming from the IDF's inability to manage the chaos. And for that reason, those responsible for issuing this directive should be held accountable.

However, this should not absolve Hamas of accountability, as some even in this thread seem to suggest. It is crucial to distinguish between a force attempting to prevent a situation with a disproportionate and unjust response, and a force that actively planned and executed a mass massacre and kidnapping of hundreds of people. Blurring the line between the two doesn't make any sense to me.

This boils down to whether one justifies the October 7th attack. Of course it didn't happen in a vacuum but the fundamental question remains: can the killing, abduction, and rape of innocent people be justified under any circumstances?

You can argue that Hamas wouldn't have attacked on October 7th if Israel hadn't been occupying Palestinian territories and sabotaging their path to a Palestinian state. Yet, does this justify Hamas initiating a mass assault on innocent civilians? In my opinion, the answer is no.

So it's crucial to recognize that Hamas initiated this act without no moral justification and should be held responsible for the casualties it caused. While the findings from Haaretz do raise questions about the IDF's actions on that day, they do not significantly change the well-known fact that the IDF failed miserably on that day. And it certainly shouldn't detract from holding Hamas accountable as the primary perpetrators of the events on October 7th, which is what I see so many people doing right now.

No one in here suggested that Hamas should not be held accountable for their own crimes.

There is this difference though, that while Hamas' attack was and continues to be widely condemned, Israel's actions are not met with the same moral standard, even while it is continuing to carrying out its own—to use your words—"mass assault on innocent civilians" that has far eclipsed the scope of October 7th. Just like you think this article could have the effect of downplaying the brutality of Hamas' actions, I'd say you are downplaying the brutality of Israel's actions just the same.

Yes, the fundamental question is indeed: can the killing, abduction, and rape of innocent people be justified under any circumstances? Clearly Israel would answer "yes" to this question, because we've seen nothing but that in the last few decades. So, really, what is the visceral difference between Israel and Hamas' disregard for civilian lives? Their willingness to use civilians and armed fighters as pawns in the game? I've never seen you write paragraphs upon paragraphs about Israel's side of the coin. That makes me not trust your moral stance here.

The difference here is that Israel is a member of the UN, a sworn democratic ally of the West, and a powerful trade partner. We don't have such relations with Hamas. We can condemn them but we cannot "punish" them as they are under illegal occupation by Israel, and punishing them unequivocally means punishing illegally occupied civilians. (And, of course, the West did punish Hamas and thus innocent civilians by defunding UNRWA for no reason than made up claims of Israel. Again, a display of double standards). However, as is routine for other countries, we can exert pressure on Israel through a wide array of economic sanctions, and yet this is somehow not done. Again, a double moral standard.

We should discuss these things thoroughly because they provide balance to the pro-Israel lobbying that powerfully dominates international politics, media and public perception. Public pressure can push politicians to call for sanctions, trade and academic boycotts, a stop to military investments,... You might think this is not as important as condemning Hamas, but to preserve the moral high ground you're representing, it's actually critical and it's only barely happening.

[Didymus 34,380]

56 minutes ago, Ronlop said:

In cases where innocent civilians were killed by the IDF as a result of this directive, it reflects poor decision-making by local commanders and a disproportionate response stemming from the IDF's inability to manage the chaos. And for that reason, those responsible for issuing this directive should be held accountable.

I also don't think you really understand the gravity of this confirmation. The finding is not that civilians got accidentally killed as part of a directive meant to target soldiers. The finding is that the army deliberately targeted civilians as if they were soldiers.

This is a radical, new interpretation of the Hannibal Directive that we shouldn't just gloss over as a "failing". It showcases a shocking lack of concern for Israeli civilian lives that would propel us into outrage if it were any other democratic/Western country. As mentioned by another user here, this raises legitimate questions about Israel's claims of trying to protect civilians in Gaza (phony claims you and others have legitimized here for a long time).

[Ronlop 6,882]

2 hours ago, Didymus said:

No one in here suggested that Hamas should not be held accountable for their own crimes.

 

@Ethereal Mess just suggested in the last page that Hamas did not burn any houses and that they were instead burned down by IOF's Apache helicopters. This is a blatant lie, and you know as well as I do that the only incident of a civilian home being taken down by the IDF during October 7th was the controversial Be'eri incident, which was widely reported.

This is nothing compared to what's being spread on social media, where people are calling Hamas "freedom fighters" and claiming Israel fabricated it all, which is simply insane. Unfortunately, this article, however important, will only fuel these false narratives further.

 

2 hours ago, Didymus said:

Yes, the fundamental question is indeed: can the killing, abduction, and rape of innocent people be justified under any circumstances? Clearly Israel would answer "yes" to this question, because we've seen nothing but that in the last few decades. So, really, what is the visceral difference between Israel and Hamas' disregard for civilian lives? Their willingness to use civilians and armed fighters as pawns in the game?

 

No killing of innocent people is justified. I have always maintained that anyone, from commanders to soldiers, who commit war crimes should be held accountable. However, the IDF as a whole does not target civilians; they target Hamas terrorists. There is a concrete effort to minimize harm to innocent lives, whether it be by warning neighborhoods beforehand, allowing citizens to flee to safety (which Hamas has ironically actively prevented), allowing humanitarian aid, or using specific targeting methods, such as sending a missile into a precise spot in a building to reduce collateral damage.

I do not intend to defend the Israeli government, which is already widely disliked in the country. This government includes leaders rooted in extreme right-wing ideologies and Netanyahu, who seeks to remain in power even at the expense of his own people's well-being. There is much to investigate regarding the proportionality of Israel's attacks on Gaza, and the high number of casualties clearly suggests that some operations prioritized killing the target over saving human lives. And again as I said, those involved in war crimes should be held accountable.

However, Hamas is incomparable to the IDF. Hamas is founded on a jihadist religious ideology that aims to eradicate Jews from the territory, as explicitly stated in their charter. What do you expect Israel to do with them? Netanyahu continued provide money to them, yet Hamas persisted with their radical, murderous plans. Thus, they are going to be targeted, especially after October 7th, and innocent casualties were bound to happen as a result of Hamas's tactics of hiding in civilian schools, hospitals, and homes.

 

2 hours ago, Didymus said:

 (And, of course, the West did punish Hamas and thus innocent civilians by defunding UNRWA for no reason than made up claims of Israel. Again, a display of double standards). However, as is routine for other countries, we can exert pressure on Israel through a wide array of economic sanctions, and yet this is somehow not done. Again, a double moral standard.

UNRWA has shown to be quite problematic and it’s evident that they have connections to Hamas in some capacity. UNRWA employees have expressed political views, and there have been instances where its offices were used for "political or military purposes.", UNRWA schools, particularly textbooks, contain problematic content. There have been cases of Hamas tunnels running next to or under UNRWA facilities, weapon stores in UNRWA buildings, UNRWA staff celebrating October 7th, and Hamas using UNRWA vehicles to transport weapons. These numerous concerns over the years have raised serious questions about the agency's ability to maintain complete neutrality, which are still under investigation...I wouldn't say the defunding came out completely of no reason.

2 hours ago, Didymus said:

We should discuss these things thoroughly because they provide balance to the pro-Israel lobbying that powerfully dominates international politics, media and public perception. Public pressure can push politicians to call for sanctions, trade and academic boycotts, a stop to military investments,... You might think this is not as important as condemning Hamas, but to preserve the moral high ground you're representing, it's actually critical and it's only barely happening.

I'm not saying boycotts aren't important—they could indeed push Israel to return to discussing the two-state solution. My concern with the pro-Palestinian protests is that they don't offer concrete solutions for dealing with threats like Hamas and Hezbollah, which do not seek peace and are driven by a fundamentalist religious ideology that opposes the presence of Jewish people in the area. How do the protesters propose to address these threats? What would giving power to such groups mean for Israeli citizens' safety? Is dismantling the Israeli state the priority, or are they genuinely considering all the lives involved? These critical issues are not being thoroughly discussed, especially since many within the movement seem to support or at least do not openly condemn Hamas and Hezbollah.

Not to mention that the pro-Palestinian movement has been shifting towards advocating for a one-state solution, which seems increasingly unrealistic in the current climate and not really a practical solution in terms of its implementation.

[Didymus 34,380]

31 minutes ago, Ronlop said:

@Ethereal Mess just suggested in the last page that Hamas did not burn any houses and that they were instead burned down by IOF's Apache helicopters. This is a blatant lie, and you know as well as I do that the only incident of a civilian home being taken down by the IDF during October 7th was the controversial Be'eri incident, which was widely reported.

This is nothing compared to what's being spread on social media, where people are calling Hamas "freedom fighters" and claiming Israel fabricated it all, which is simply insane. Unfortunately, this article, however important, will only fuel these false narratives further.

I wouldn't claim with certainty that it was the only incident but it's true that the Apache helicopter claim is false, I'll give you that. I think that member confused two incidents. Apache helicopter forces did in fact kill Israeli civilians at the festival site.

I definitely don't support what's being spread on social media (though I could easily refer to the other side of the coin: the blatant genocidal speech of pro-Israelis) and it's true that this article could fuel that insanity. But this is partly of Israel's own making: a lot of fake news was in fact invented to exacerbate what happened on October 7th and it got rightfully exposed. Israel strategically focused on fake facts instead of real facts to describe what happened, and this has cost them.

This combined with their decision to forbid forensic analysis and independent investigations has directly resulted in the ambiguity that fuels the online discourse you refer to. There are reasonable grounds to doubt anything Israeli officials say, but, yes, this is not an excuse to glorify Hamas.

Although, it must be said, even survivors of October 7th describe several Hamas fighters as treating them humanely and seeking to protect them from Israeli fire. So we must also be careful not to make a barbarous terrorist cliché out of Hamas, which I've seen a lot of your posts do also.

[Didymus 34,380]

40 minutes ago, Ronlop said:

No killing of innocent people is justified. I have always maintained that anyone, from commanders to soldiers, who commit war crimes should be held accountable. However, the IDF as a whole does not target civilians; they target Hamas terrorists. There is a concrete effort to minimize harm to innocent lives, whether it be by warning neighborhoods beforehand, allowing citizens to flee to safety (which Hamas has ironically actively prevented), allowing humanitarian aid, or using specific targeting methods, such as sending a missile into a precise spot in a building to reduce collateral damage.

This is objectively false lol

The "concrete effort to minimize harm" does not work and has never worked. The "warnings" have been widely criticized as insufficient and even useless by international aid workers on the ground, and we now have multiple cases of proof that show the army does not in fact allow citizens to flee. The clearest large-scale example, of course, is the fact that the army routinely bombs "safe zones".

The reduction of collateral damage might be true for some isolated instances but in this current war we've seen a total lack of concern for such damage, so I have no idea how you think this is a good argument. The humanitarian aid argument is too ludicrous to even entertain. Google any report from humanitarian aid workers on the ground and the argument shatters. If what you're saying is true, civilians wouldn't be dying en masse, nor would they be starving.

Which brings me to this:

46 minutes ago, Ronlop said:

What do you expect Israel to do with [Hamas]? Netanyahu continued provide money to them, yet Hamas persisted with their radical, murderous plans. Thus, they are going to be targeted, especially after October 7th, and innocent casualties were bound to happen as a result of Hamas's tactics of hiding in civilian schools, hospitals, and homes.

This sounds a lot like justification to me. It makes no sense, really, to claim that Netanyahu was some kind of victim to betrayal when he underestimated a terror group. Hamas was on its way out and Netanyahu resurrected it to boycott an actual chance for peace. Some would say thát was bound to backfire. Even disregarding that, plenty of military experts have called Israel's siege on Gaza a laughably inadequate "targeting" of Hamas anyway, so what makes you think this war will work to overthrow Hamas?

Also, someone must have told you by now that as illegal occupier, Israel is not allowed by international law to target civilian infrastructure, even if enemy forces hide there. Nor does this explain why the army chooses to bomb areas it designated as safe zones, unless you're seriously claiming that if Hamas fighters enter those safe zones, Israel has the right to target everyone in them.

You're saying those who, despite the army's supposedly great record of respecting civilians, commit war crimes should be held accountable but it's the whole army that systematically commits war crimes.

[Didymus 34,380]

56 minutes ago, Ronlop said:

UNRWA has shown to be quite problematic and it’s evident that they have connections to Hamas in some capacity. UNRWA employees have expressed political views, and there have been instances where its offices were used for "political or military purposes.", UNRWA schools, particularly textbooks, contain problematic content. There have been cases of Hamas tunnels running next to or under UNRWA facilities, weapon stores in UNRWA buildings, UNRWA staff celebrating October 7th, and Hamas using UNRWA vehicles to transport weapons. These numerous concerns over the years have raised serious questions about the agency's ability to maintain complete neutrality, which are still under investigation...I wouldn't say the defunding came out completely of no reason.

lol coming to you directly copied from official Israeli sources.

You're leaving out the most crucial part: UNRWA is documented to have taken measures to remedy all of these things you mentioned. The defunding itself was in fact based on objectively false allegations. Nor does this defeat my point: even if all of these things were true as you present them, sanctioning Hamas through UNRWA is in fact a punishment of already terrorized Gaza civilians and, so, not a moral option vs. sanctioning Israel.

1 hour ago, Ronlop said:

I'm not saying boycotts aren't important—they could indeed push Israel to return to discussing the two-state solution. My concern with the pro-Palestinian protests is that they don't offer concrete solutions for dealing with threats like Hamas and Hezbollah, which do not seek peace and are driven by a fundamentalist religious ideology that opposes the presence of Jewish people in the area. How do the protesters propose to address these threats? What would giving power to such groups mean for Israeli citizens' safety? Is dismantling the Israeli state the priority, or are they genuinely considering all the lives involved? These critical issues are not being thoroughly discussed, especially since many within the movement seem to support or at least do not openly condemn Hamas and Hezbollah.

Not to mention that the pro-Palestinian movement has been shifting towards advocating for a one-state solution, which seems increasingly unrealistic in the current climate and not really a practical solution in terms of its implementation.

This is not accurate imo. There is plenty of discussion about concrete solutions. That they're not happening on Facebook and X, well, what did you expect? I'm not finding that level of discussion among Israeli civilians online either, who seem perfectly fine with continuing the war and expanding the illegal settlements.

Anyway, we won't ever agree obvi. Let's just stay with the topic of the Hannibal Directive I guess.