The claim that Israel invoked the Hannibal Directive during the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack, allegedly causing significant Israeli casualties, has ignited serious debate. If former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant indeed confirmed its use, this raises critical ethical and legal questions, not only about Israel’s military response but also about the justification for the subsequent large-scale war on Gaza.
The Hannibal Directive is a long-standing, highly controversial Israeli military protocol designed to prevent the capture of soldiers by enemy forces. The principle behind it is clear but ruthless: if an Israeli soldier is at risk of being taken hostage, extreme measures, including lethal force, can be used to prevent their capture. In practice, this has meant that in certain situations, Israeli forces have been authorized to fire on their own people to prevent them from falling into enemy hands. Reports from independent journalists and eyewitness testimonies now suggest that this policy may have extended beyond military personnel on October 7, with Israeli helicopters, drones, and tanks allegedly firing at fleeing civilians, including those trying to escape the Supernova music festival near the Gaza border. Survivors have testified that Israeli helicopters were firing into crowds, creating confusion and panic. If these claims hold, it would mean that a significant portion of the 1,139 deaths officially attributed to Hamas were actually caused by Israeli forces themselves.
If the directive was applied as Gallant reportedly admitted, it radically shifts the narrative of October 7. The official justification for Israel’s full-scale war on Gaza, portraying it as a necessary and unavoidable response to an unprecedented Hamas massacre, would be fundamentally undermined. Instead, the evidence would suggest that the attack, while undoubtedly brutal, was either exploited or deliberately facilitated by Israel’s security apparatus to justify an already-planned military operation. Reports indicate that Israeli border security was mysteriously absent for several hours, allowing Hamas militants to cross into Israeli territory with remarkable ease. If the government had prior knowledge of the attack or even played a role in enabling it, then what has been framed as a defensive war could be seen as a pretext for a long-planned assault on Gaza.
Beyond military strategy, there are clear geopolitical and economic motives at play. Gaza’s offshore natural gas reserves, estimated to be worth trillions of dollars, are a critical factor in this conflict. Israel has long sought to control these resources, which, if fully exploited, could dramatically enhance its energy independence and economic dominance in the region. A war that permanently displaces the Palestinian population would pave the way for Israel, or a U.S.-backed entity, to seize these reserves without resistance. This economic incentive is rarely discussed in mainstream narratives but is central to understanding the broader context of Israel’s actions.
Trump’s recent comments about the U.S. potentially “taking over” Gaza further expose the economic and territorial ambitions behind this conflict. His proposal to turn Gaza into a resort area while resettling its population in Egypt, Jordan, and Europe aligns closely with Israeli plans for a Greater Israel, which envisions the expansion of Israeli territory and the permanent removal of Palestinians from strategic areas. The justification given, that Palestinians would have a “better life” elsewhere, is a thinly veiled attempt to whitewash what would amount to ethnic cleansing. What Trump did not mention is that such a move would also hand the lucrative gas fields off Gaza’s coast to American or Israeli control.
The reaction from regional and global players has been telling. Egypt, Jordan, and even traditionally U.S.-aligned Saudi Arabia have firmly rejected any plans for forced Palestinian resettlement. Despite their past hesitancy to fully back Palestinian resistance movements, these countries understand the dangerous precedent such a displacement would set, not just for Gaza but for the broader Arab world. Meanwhile, Russia’s increasing military cooperation with Iran, particularly in providing Sukhoi-35 fighter jets, signals a shift in the geopolitical balance of power. If Washington and Tel Aviv believed they could reshape the Middle East unchallenged, they may have underestimated the resistance they would face, not just from Palestinians but from other global players unwilling to see Gaza become a colonial-style resource grab.
With these revelations, the moral and legal justification for Israel’s ongoing military campaign crumbles. The idea that this is purely a war of self-defense becomes increasingly untenable. If Israeli forces deliberately killed their own civilians under the Hannibal Directive, and if the government knowingly allowed or even facilitated the October 7 attack to justify its military campaign, then this war is not about defense, it is about long-term territorial and economic domination. The staggering destruction of Gaza, with over 90% of its housing and infrastructure obliterated and tens of thousands of civilians killed, cannot be justified as a proportionate response.
As 2025 unfolds, the conflict’s trajectory will likely be shaped by the reactions of international players. The U.S. and Israel may still pursue their Greater Israel ambitions, but with growing regional and global opposition, they may find themselves facing unexpected resistance. Trump’s talk of annexing Gaza could end up being more of a bargaining chip in a larger geopolitical chess game, but it is unlikely to go unchallenged by those who recognize the deeper stakes at play. Whether the international community takes meaningful action against these unfolding events or continues to enable Israel’s ambitions remains an open question.
Duruebube Uzii na Abosi
OBLONG MEDIA UNLIMITED 
Leave a comment