John Mearsheimer: Hamas Did Not Kill 1200 Civilians on October 7, Israel Used Hanibal Directives

The army was ordered to kill Israelis on 7 October, Defence Minister Yoav Gallant confirms. 

Dr Pamelia Riviere

A report released by a UN Commission in June 2024 revealed alarming details regarding the Israel Security Forces' implementation of the controversial Hannibal Directive during the tumultuous events of October 7. In one poignant example, a tank crew openly acknowledged that they invoked the Hannibal Directive, which led to them firing upon a vehicle that was suspected of transporting captured Israeli soldiers, illustrating the directive's grave implications. Various news outlets across the globe reported that the repercussions of the Hannibal Directive were severe, suggesting that it was not only Hamas that inflicted harm but also the Israeli forces themselves, resulting in the tragic loss of their own citizens.

 On July 7, 2024, Haaretz disclosed that the Hannibal operational order, which permits the use of lethal force to avert the capture of Israeli soldiers, had been activated at three separate military installations during the chaos. Further reports on the same day stated that the Israeli army had formally authorized the use of the Hannibal Directive, a policy that has drawn significant controversy for its aggressive stance against enemy advancements, as highlighted by Al Jazeera. 

Additionally, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation brought attention to the troubling accusations that Israeli forces had, under the cover of the Hannibal Directive during the tumult of October 7, been responsible for the deaths of their own civilians. This revelation, officially reported on September 6, 2025, underscores the complex and tragic nature of the ongoing conflict.

Hamas lacked incendiaries: Fishy Israeli Army stand down command?

On October 7, significant events unfolded that have prompted various analyses. If Israel were to release all the footage from that day publicly, it is believed that the contrasting narratives would take many aback. Reports suggest that Hamas was primarily equipped with rifles and RPGs, lacking incendiaries or the means to deploy them. It appears that Hamas did not intend to cause mass casualties, as many of the fatalities were allegedly inflicted by Israeli forces. While local commanders may not have been fully aware of the impending attack, there are indications that the central command of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) had a different level of foreknowledge. 

Actions taken prior to the attack, such as troop withdrawals from the area and the decision to issue a "stand down" command to some border guards, raise questions about the strategic choices made by the IDF.

Critics highlight the apparent inconsistency of an intelligence system capable of executing complex operations yet seemingly neglectful in responding to its own assessments. This has led to speculation that the events may not have been the result of mere oversight but part of a broader strategy. Initial media coverage characterized the October 7 incident as "Israel's 9/11," emphasizing the magnitude of the situation. Reports also indicated that the morning patrol on that day was instructed to remain inactive until 9 AM, further complicating the narrative surrounding the events.

What is the Hannibal Directive? The Hannibal Directive is an Israeli military policy that permits the use of maximum force to thwart soldier abductions, even if it poses risks to the soldiers themselves. Established in 1986 by three high-ranking army officers, it detailed the actions to be taken if an Israeli soldier were captured during combat. On July 7, 2024, the Guardian reported, citing a Haaretz article: Amid the initial confusion of the Hamas assault on October 7, Israel's armed forces activated the Hannibal protocol, which mandates the use of force to prevent soldier kidnappings, even at the risk of harming hostages. 

The daily newspaper Haaretz reported on Sunday, marking nine months since the attack that resulted in roughly 1,200 fatalities and around 250 individuals taken to the Gaza Strip, that the operational procedure was executed at three military sites targeted by Hamas, which could have endangered civilians as well. 

Additionally, a directive issued to Israel's Gaza division at 11:22 AM, roughly five hours after the assault commenced, instructed that "Not a single vehicle can return to Gaza."

The Guardian Reported Hareetz 

A source from the southern command informed the publication: “At that point, it was clear to everyone that such vehicles could be transporting kidnapped individuals, whether civilians or soldiers ... It was understood that no vehicles should be allowed to return to Gaza.” The Israeli government has been accused of attempting to obstruct a ceasefire proposal for Gaza. 

According to Haaretz, it remains uncertain whether civilians or soldiers were affected by these commands, or the extent of that impact. Still, documents and testimonies from soldiers, along with accounts from mid-level and senior Israel Defence Forces (IDF) officers, indicated that this practice was employed widely on October 7 due to unclear information as the IDF worked to respond to the assault. In reaction to the report, an IDF spokesperson stated that internal inquiries into the events of October 7 and the preceding timeframe were in progress. 

“These investigations aim to gain insights and lessons that could be applied in the ongoing battle. Once these investigations are completed, the findings will be shared with the public transparently,” the statement mentioned. The Haaretz investigation represents the latest coverage by Israeli media revealing shortcomings in military intelligence and operational responses surrounding the Hamas attack, the most lethal single assault on Israeli territory since the establishment of the state in 1948.

Electronic Intifada Report: This section heavily relies on the Electronic Intifada report. On February 7, 2025, Electronic Intifada released an article titled: “Army was ordered to kill Israelis on October 7, defence minister confirms.” The piece disclosed that Israeli forces received orders to execute captive Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, as acknowledged by the then-defence minister earlier this week. The directive to implement Israel’s so-called Hannibal Directive was issued “tactically” and “in different locations” near Gaza, Yoav Gallant stated in an interview with Israel’s Channel 12 on Thursday.

 “In certain areas, it was not given, and that poses a problem,” he added. During the interview, journalist Amit Segal explained to the audience that “the Hannibal Directive instructs to shoot to kill when there is a vehicle holding an Israeli hostage” – a portrayal that Gallant did not dispute. This was Gallant's first interview with Israeli television since his firing in November. You can view a subtitled clip in the video above or watch the complete interview in Hebrew on the Channel 12 website—first public acknowledgment.

The Hannibal Directive was applied inconsistently across various areas

In contrast to Gallant’s claim that the Hannibal Directive was applied inconsistently across various areas, Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot reported in January 2024 that an explicit order was issued by the Israeli military's high command to implement the Hannibal Directive throughout the entire region at midday on October 7. The directive stated that this action would proceed “even if this means endangering or harming the lives of civilians in the region, including the captives themselves,” according to Israeli journalists Ronen Bergman and Yoav Zitun. 

In July, Haaretz reported that an order was given to the Gaza Division of the Israeli military at 11:22 am that day, stating that “not a single vehicle can return to Gaza.” However, Gallant’s recent statement is significant, as it marks the first public acknowledgment by a contemporary Israeli minister that their forces were instructed to fire on their own citizens on October 7. Initially issued in secrecy by Israeli generals in the 1980s, the Hannibal Directive represents Israel’s national murder-suicide agreement. Initially, it specified that, when enacted, Israeli soldiers were permitted to fire upon other Israeli soldiers who had recently captured Palestinian or other Arab resistance fighters.

 However, on October 7, 2023, in an unprecedented Hamas operation, approximately 250 Israeli soldiers and civilians were captured by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups during what they called Operation Al Aqsa Flood. 

In response, Israel reactivated and implemented the Hannibal doctrine, extending its application to Israeli civilians in addition to soldiers. Artillery from Israeli helicopters, drones, tanks, and even ground forces was intentionally deployed in a failed effort to stop Palestinian fighters from taking living Israeli captives, who would subsequently be exchanged for Palestinian detainees.

 Around 1,100 Israelis lost their lives. It remains uncertain how many were killed by Israelis and how many by Palestinians. 

Intifada Report: At least “hundreds” were killed by Israeli forces

A year later, an investigation conducted by The Electronic Intifada revealed that at least “hundreds” were killed by Israeli forces following the Hannibal directives. Official statistics, released for the first time last month, indicated that the Israeli Air Force fired 11,000 rounds, dropped over 500 one-ton bombs, and launched 180 missiles during the engagement on October 7. An independent inquiry by the United Nations last year criticized Israeli authorities for denying them access to the nation. The report from the inquiry stated, “Israeli officials not only refused to assist the commission’s investigation but also reportedly prevented medical professionals and others from engaging with them.”

John Mearsheimer: Hamas did not kill 1200 Israeli civilians on October 7

On October 7, 2025, during a thought-provoking interview with journalist Katie Halper, prominent political scientist John Mearsheimer and passionate Palestinian-American writer and activist Susan Abulhawa delved into the intricate complexities that shaped the events of that day. 

They shed light on the critical role of Israeli firepower, the pervasive influence of propaganda, and the controversial Hannibal Doctrine, revealing a narrative that remains largely unexamined in mainstream Western media. In a striking admission, Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant confirmed the deployment of the Hannibal directive. This revelation raises significant ethical questions and highlights the troubling implications of such military strategies. 

Professor John Mearsheimer discussed the two-year anniversary of the events of October 7, expressing deep concern over the persistent misinformation surrounding that day. He criticized the widespread repetition of sensationalized stories, such as claims of beheaded babies, which have been debunked yet continue to circulate among politicians and media personalities. 

Mearsheimer questioned whether this was due to willful deceit or ignorance, indicating that both scenarios are troubling. He pointed out the lack of an independent investigation into the events of that day, despite ongoing discussions and reports. 

He highlighted how, even after two years, there remains a troubling failure to establish accurate facts about the incidents attributed to Hamas, noting the absence of accountability for the narratives being propagated.

The discussion highlights the significant role of Israeli Apache helicopters in the recent conflict, noting that at least 28 helicopters were involved, reloading their ammunition multiple times and firing approximately 21,000 rounds. Reports indicate that these operations resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people, with initial Israeli estimates of casualties fluctuating wildly—from 2,200 to around 1,200, ultimately settling around 1,200. This inconsistency has raised concerns about the accuracy of the reported death toll. 

A central theme is the critique of sensationalized narratives that have emerged from the conflict, including allegations of extreme violence such as mass beheadings and rapes. Critics argue that these stories have fostered widespread public support for violent actions against Palestinians in Gaza, portraying the situation as one marked by unprecedented savagery. 

The conversation also touches on the need for clarity regarding the events of October 7. It acknowledges that while there have been updates, there remains uncertainty about the full scope of what transpired. Overall, there is a call for more accurate and truthful representations of the situation to counter narratives that may be misleading or exaggerated.

Mearsheimer discusses the situation involving Israeli casualties and the military response to Hamas. He notes that Israel was caught off guard and lacked a solid backup plan, which led to a rapid deployment of heavy firepower. This response resulted in significant casualties among both Palestinians and Israelis, mainly civilians, due to the indiscriminate nature of the attacks. He explains the context of the Hannibal doctrine, which aims to prevent the abduction of Israeli soldiers by Hamas, emphasizing that some Israelis were inadvertently killed as a consequence of this policy. 

Mearsheimer argues that while Hamas's actions, including attacks on Israeli military forces, can be understood within the context of international law—considering their fight for freedom—there were also clear instances of civilian deaths that could be classified as war crimes.

 He asserts that many of the Israeli fatalities were either legitimate military targets or civilians caught in the crossfire of Israeli military operations, particularly from aerial attacks, which caused widespread destruction. Mearsheimer criticizes Western media for perpetuating narratives that reflect Israeli propaganda, suggesting that the complexity of the situation is often misrepresented in mainstream reporting.

The discussion surrounding the breakout from Gaza highlights a critical aspect that often goes unnoticed: the circumstances leading to this event, which some describe as originating from a concentration camp. The plight of the Palestinians, subjected to what many view as inhumane conditions, raises questions about the reasons behind such desperate actions. While some may attempt to draw parallels between the actions of the Palestinians and the Nazis during the Holocaust, this comparison is deemed inappropriate, as the historical contexts are vastly different. 

The events of October 7, while condemned in their violence, are positioned as a reaction to a broader narrative of victimization. The complexities of the situation require a deeper examination of the responsibilities of all parties involved, particularly Israel, in contributing to the conditions that led to this breakout. This perspective suggests that understanding the full context is essential to comprehending the motivations behind the actions that occurred on that day, and it underscores the importance of recognizing the intricate layers of the ongoing conflict.

The writer is a freelance analyst.