Hannibal Directive is the beginning of fascism in Israel
Uri Arad
Published: 12.08.14, 15:01
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
10 Talkbacks for this article
1. You fight cannibals with hannibal
Allon   (08.12.14)
The protocol doesn't call for killing the soldier to prevent capture, but it does relax the restraints on protecting collateral damage in order to prevent and IDF soldier, alive or dead, taken captive. In the critical minutes this is both necessary and moral. It reflects the cannibalistic nature of our enemies who remove dead soldiers from the battlefield in order to inflict pain on the families of the fallen. I am tired of people who use human rights as a cover to fight against a protocol that prevents the psychological warfare and desecration of the dead that is so sought after by our truly depraved enemies.
2. Fascism began long ago
Dan   (08.12.14)
As an israeli Jew I am sorry to say the Israeli fascism began long ago, with chants of 'Begin King of Israel', Haredi worship of Goldstein, the villification and murder of Rabin, the diversion of funds and protection to settlers, increasing racism and the suppression of left-wing dissent. It is Netanyahu above all who bears the responsibility for not only failing to stop this fascist evolution but deliberately encouraging it.
3. Is there concept of military oath in IDF.
Miron ,   USA   (08.12.14)
The life of soldier is not only expendable for the state. It is his duty to protect the state, with his life. Fascism is totally different matter. It's about exterminating people who express opinion, contrary to others, in a peaceful manner using either state institutions, or institutions emulating states. And the extermination is also carryng, very much concrete meaning. For example, 2 millions out of 2 millions and 100,000, as it was done in Babiy Yar. I mean using word fascist in this context only dents credibility of the writer.
4. Hannibal Protocol
George Brown ,   New York   (08.12.14)
Yes, the life of a soldier is less important than the good of the state: If Shalit had the balls to kill himself in captivity, at least the 3 kids who were brutally murdered last month in the WBank would still be alive today.
5. Released Terros from Shalit deal played LARGE role in causin
Alan ,   SA   (08.12.14)
death and destruction this time leading up to and including this War Also what about that Police Superintendent who was murdered?
6. the irony here is...
oferdesade ,   israel   (08.12.14)
(and not that i dont agree with the preliminary thesis of the country going fascist - but this is a result of our neighbors' responses to the alternative) that those who believe that every soldier (dead or alive) must be brought back are the first to criticize the release of terrorists in payment. i am not speaking of the shalit or tennenbaum fiascii, but of situations where soldiers caught (or their bodies) actually were assets.
7. a worthy article
that should be discussed, and can be approached from two directions. First, we see that the word "fascism" means nothing except "this is something really really bad". In our first approach, we understand that the author thinks that combat soldiers dying for the good of the State is a bad thing, despite that being the definition of a combat soldier. If we take Arad's opinion to its only logical conclusion, a combat soldier should never opt to die, and always retreat in the face of danger, that is to say, desert. Fair enough, except there is a worldwide and historic consensus that desertion is a capital crime, so reality proves Arad wrong. But let's flow with Arad's logic, where does it take us? Zionism says the Jew must stand and fight, just like any other nation. Arad condemns Zionism. An alternative is the "Anatevka" Jew from Fiddler on the Roof: the "wandering Jew" is always a temporary presence who must leave when he is threatened. The only other model is "Soapism", from the Hebrew "Sabonim" practiced by Jews in the 1930s and 1940s. Uri Arad should consider which of these three options he advocates, and act accordingly.
8. # 2 Dan I am with you
Yossi   (08.12.14)
9. while i agree...
gawain ,   israel   (08.12.14)
with much of this article, it nevertheless is important to realize that the very idea of war is predicated on the assumption - or should i say determination - that the government has the right to sacrifice soldiers in defense of the state. Is this fascism? Perhaps
10. I am surprised by his tame article.
Ron ,   Melbourne, Australia   (08.14.14)
Here we go again - twisting words which are very different in meaning and context and stretching them to fit whatever they feel like (Like the people how cry Genocide in Gaza when 2000 die out of a population which is at least 1.8 million and has grown at least 4X in from the 70's). It is cute to see how every policy he disagrees with is part of a Fascist fabric. The Left with its calls of Racism, Genocide, Apartheid, etc - which is aimed at stifling proper discourse by demonizing is blame free. Everyone on the Right according to them is a Racist - but when you look at the Palestinian TV , the Northen Islamic movement, ,etc ,etc which are espousing true racism (like blood in Mazot on PA television, etc) - have we heard complaint by the Left such as Racism, - not really - they can't be Genocidal, racists or fascist. By the way - was Mussolini not a child of the 'Left' ? was Nazi party not a party for of socialist (the 'workers party') ,etc ,etc - It is the old game of the left to give names to everyone else to hide truth and proper debate. Name calling, mis-categorizing is their tools of the trade. Many democratic Governments put their citizens in harms way. There are enough commission of inquiry around the world (years later). This does not make them Fascist. Sending people to war for political reason can be deemed Fascist by that account (something many countries have done) and the question is who makes a call when it is necessary or not. This is a slippery slope as to the definition of fascism. By that definition the US not paying ransom and terrorist killing the hostage is fascist - why - because the could have just printed more money and their responsibility is to protect their citizens. Give us a break. Israel is under constant attack and that is part of the decisions democratic government need to take into account. Why don't you attack the real Fascism that is the Hamas, the PA that has no elections, that has a media which calls to destroy another people, that promotes hatred beyond any claims you can have re Liberman, Netanyahu, etc - Maybe the PA and Hamas and the Northen Islamic movement stop incitement , throwing rocks at worshipers from the temple mount, etc ,etc, - maybe there will not be a backlash
Back to article