Q&A: The Hannibal Directive
The Hannibal Directive
Question
In the context of the recent events, what is the view of Jewish law regarding the Hannibal Directive? (In a situation where a soldier is being abducted, there is an order to fire in order to kill both the terrorists and the abductee.)
Answer
As far as I know, there is no such order. In the past there was tacit agreement, but it was canceled (by the then Military Advocate General, my friend Menachem Finkelstein). The directive does not say to kill the abductee, but to fire at the kidnappers even at the cost of risking the abductee’s life. If it means the certain destruction of everyone, I don’t think they ever acted that way.
From the standpoint of Jewish law, in principle it is certainly forbidden. Perhaps if there are special political considerations it could be permitted. The directive is based on the idea that a situation in which we have a captive is problematic, because it creates pressure on our policy and will demand concessions from us. But in principle it is preferable to leave him in captivity without negotiating and without concessions. True, from the family’s perspective this is problematic, but leadership needs to know how to deal with that.
Discussion on Answer
From a halakhic standpoint, attributing to the abductee the status of a pursuer is ignorance, even if it is said in a firm and confident tone. On the contrary, halakhically there is no permission whatsoever to harm him, since a person may not save himself at the cost of another person’s life. However, on the collective, wartime level there may perhaps be room to act differently from the ordinary rules of Jewish law.
Exactly the opposite.
Every abducted soldier or civilian will, according to past precedents, lead to the release of terrorists who will kill many Jews. Therefore, his status while in the enemy’s hands is as though he himself is endangering Jewish lives, and so the directive is entirely logical.