Hannibal Directive in Jewish law

Israeli reporter Ronen Bergman has claimed that IDF soldiers were told, during certain incidents on October 7, to prevent the kidnapping of Israel citizens or soldiers “at all costs.” The alleged directives were purposely ambiguous. In practice, the claim goes, it was understood that the forces would fire in those given scenarios with the goal of killing terrorists, even when clearly understanding that their fellow Israelis would inevitably also be killed. 

These alleged incidents have been strongly criticized by Prof. Asa Kasher, author of the IDF’s first code of ethics. He notes that previous IDF chiefs of staff, including Shaul Mofaz and Benny Gantz, directed that there was no permission to target a hostage. The details of these allegations remain murky, but it pays to review the responsibilities of a government toward individual lives within the broader context of a military campaign intended to secure the broader collective. 

What is the Hannibal Directive?

The Hannibal Directive was reportedly developed in 1996 following the release of terrorists in return for the corpses of two IDF soldiers. The goal is to prevent the torment of captivity, as well as the heated public debate regarding the extent to which the government must go to “bring home its boys.” Some initial proponents declared, “Better a dead soldier than a captured soldier.” According to this logic, one might even fire directly at the soldier if no other means are possible to save him. More moderately, it would allow taking high-level risks, such as aiming at the tires of a getaway car or ordering distant snipers to fire on the terrorists, with the risk of unintentionally killing the hostage. 

Alternatively, one might order encircled soldiers to drop a grenade to kill themselves and their captors. Reportedly, in the past, some IDF commanders told their soldiers to drop a grenade rather than be captured, but this does not appear to be official IDF protocol. 

Our sages asserted the biblical prohibition of suicide, yet in the middle of a losing battle with the Philistines, King Saul fell on his sword rather than be taken captive. Similar choices were made throughout Jewish history, including by those surrounded at Masada or persecuted during the First Crusades.

Some commentators assert that Saul erred by taking his own life and becoming a harmful role model for later generations. Others, however, believe that suicide is not prohibited under such circumstances. Rabbi David Kimchi contended that since Saul’s death was inevitable (and prophesied by Samuel), it was preferable for him to prevent the national shame of being killed by his enemies. In the 16th century, Rabbi Shlomo Luria argued that Saul committed suicide to prevent many warriors from dying while trying to free him.

Based on these precedents, Rabbi Shlomo Goren posited that captured soldiers may commit suicide rather than submit to captivity, especially if they might be tortured to reveal secrets that could endanger other soldiers or the home front. This position was strongly opposed by Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Neriah, who argued that suicide cannot be endorsed, as Jewish history teaches that Jews must always stay alive. 

Whatever these sources might suggest regarding suicide, it is not allowed for other soldiers to actively target a captive, in spite of the potential damage to national interests. This seems to be the logical conclusion of a well-known Talmudic passage in which a convoy of Jewish travelers is attacked by gentile marauders and ordered to hand over one Jew or face the annihilation of the entire party. The Talmud rules that all should be killed rather than delivering a Jew to his death. A Jew should not actively cause the death of another, even if this act of omission might endanger others.

Accordingly, Rabbi Yuval Cherlow has argued that Jewish law would oppose any version of the Hannibal Directive that would call for the direct targeting of the captured soldier. Rabbi Elazar Goldstein added that such a directive might also dangerously undermine the morale and unity of the unit.

This argument was countered by rabbis Shlomo Aviner and Yaakov Epstein, who contended that during wartime we must prioritize public needs over the rights of an individual. For this reason, we can forcibly conscript soldiers into dangerous army service, even though they might get killed. So, too, we can purposely shoot at a captive if it is necessary to preserve national security.

Rabbi Yaakov Ariel rejects that logic. He contends that we can never prioritize one life over another in this manner. As the Talmud states, “Who says your blood is redder than his?” We permit army maneuvers or operations that might endanger our soldiers, be they the captives or those coming to save them. 

Unintended harm is a legitimate risk of war, but we should never purposely target our comrades – civilians and soldiers alike. Others add that it would be better to passively allow the captives to remain in captivity than actively kill them.

The profound ethical dilemmas created by the Hannibal Directive should remind us how we got to this point. Since the Jibril deal in 1985, Israel has repeatedly released hundreds of imprisoned terrorists to bring our soldiers home, dead or alive. The continued willingness to release dangerous prisoners has only encouraged more terrorism and kidnappings, including those on Oct. 7. 

The Hannibal Directive is just one more reminder of the dangerous consequences of well-intentioned but ultimately misguided prisoner exchange policy. Israeli leaders must take this into account as well as we deal with the dilemmas posed in our current war. ■

The writer is executive director of Ematai and author of Ethics of Our Fighters: A Jewish View on War & Morality (Maggid).