Is ‘Hannibal’ real?

Perhaps the leaders of Israel’s armed forces did not know that the name Hannibal means “grace of Baal”, that is, the deity opposed to Yeshua, to whose protection the Hebrews would sometimes turn, betraying their forefathers’ religion. Or perhaps they did know, and in a self-critical way, decided to use the name to designate one of the most controversial military operations, which was perhaps also enacted on 7 October. Yes, because Hannibal is the name given to the initiative the IDF launched on the morning of 7 October, opening fire also on Israeli civilians who were taken hostage, or about to be, by Hamas. In other words, they knowingly chose a highly debatable lesser evil, over the supposedly greater one, that is, the presence in the Strip of Israeli citizens who had been kidnapped by Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists. There were rumours in recent months of eyewitnesses who reported seeing helicopters open fire on young people fleeing (or already in the hands of the terrorists) the Supernova festival. But it is a well-known fact that fake news and disinformation are an integral part of a conflict, which is why these news initially received little attention. Israeli news outlets are now returning to the matter, providing new details.

In the forefront is the news outlet “Hareetz”, which has always been very critical of Netanyahu’s administration and of the way in which the war in Gaza is being conducted. In fact, the so-called “Hannibal protocol” did not come to light with the war in Gaza. It had already been introduced in 1986 when a small number of Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon. The guiding principle was cynically simple: “Better dead than abducted”. The motivating factor seems to have been the high price that would have been paid for the hostages’ release. In 2006, when Hamas captured Corporal Gilad Shalit (and killed two of his companions) negotiations to secure his freedom went on for five years, and it wasn’t until 2011 that he was allowed to return home, in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners. It was made known at the time that the Hannibal protocol was activated about one hour after the shooting, when Shalit was already captive in Gaza.

The detailed contents of the Hannibal protocol are not clear, as they are classified. It is likely that, in addition to the written procedure, there is one that is communicated verbally. And it has been subject to variations over the years. It is notable for instance that in 2011 the then military Chief of Staff, Benny Gantz (who recently resigned from his position as a minister in Netanyahu’s war cabinet due to disagreements with the prime minister), greatly limited the protocol’s use, establishing that in no case could an Israeli soldier be killed to prevent his or her capture.

But until 7 October, the controversial protocol only applied to the military. There is more than a little suspicion that the morning of 7 October the protocol was also applied to civilian hostages taken by Hamas. Israeli news outlets “Haaretz” and “Yedioth Ahronoth” shared survivors’ accounts of the massacre perpetrated by the terrorists. Eyewitnesses reported machine-gun fire from Israeli helicopters on convoys that were transporting the hostages to Gaza, and of tanks shooting at buildings in which terrorists were barricaded with hostages. It is still not known whether these events took place due to miscommunication between operating forces on the ground and those in the vehicles, or if someone had activated Hannibal. Nor is it possible to know how many of the victims of that tragic morning were caused by “friendly fire”, nor if it was intentional or otherwise. Various investigations by the IDF are underway, and still today, relatives of the victims — in particular of the massacre in Be’eri kibbutz, and the Supernova music festival — are forcefully demanding that the truth surrounding the events of that Saturday be brought to light.

Should it be true that Hannibal was in fact activated on 7 October, Hamas and Islamic Jihad would still be those primarily responsible for the massacre. This would however, add another tragic element to the unprecedented ferocity to which both sides have contributed in this conflict. (Roberto Cetera)

Roberto Cetera