3 ms·
The facts are on page 44 under the heading: "Israeli Security Forces counter-offensive and the application of the ‘Hannibal Directive’" It's a version of the p
by AftHurrahWinch 2y ago
The facts are on page 44 under the heading: "Israeli Security Forces counter-offensive and the application of the ‘Hannibal Directive’"
It's a version of the prisoner's dilemma.
If you give something someone wants in exchange for a hostage, then you're giving them an incentive to take hostages.
If you refuse to negotiate, then you have to recover hostages by force.
If you're going to recover hostages by force, you're most likely to succeed during the hostage taking, not later once they're sequestered.
Therefore, if you're going to refuse any exchange, logically, you should apply the 'Hannibal Directive' and attempt to prevent the hostage taking immediately and by any means, even if it leads to the hostage's death.
- NomDePlum 2y agoI don't think your logic matches what was reported at all. Your explanation implies the 'Hannibal Directive' is an attempt to rescue hostages by force. What's described in the article appears to be orders to strike and all kill those in the vehicles that hostages are transported in. The strategy described is the deliberate killing of hostages to prevent any need to bargain over hostages. It's a kill order in short. One other point is that the article cites the 'Hannibal Directive' being applied to soldiers at one point, but then says it majorly happened for civilians. This feels like an important distinction.