Talk:Hannibal Directive/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)