The totally disproportionate reaction in Israel to the documentary film NAZA, formally produced and presented by Britain but written and directed by two Israeli filmmakers in their early 30s, Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, calls for comment.
The film won the special Jury Prize at the 83rd Venice International Film Festival on Saturday, a week and a half ago, and received an unprecedented 25-minute ovation. In Israel, it was perceived as a catastrophe for Israeli hasbara (public diplomacy).
The film is based on the recorded evidence given by 24 anonymous former Israeli soldiers, officers, and intelligence personnel. This evidence deals with what is known in military lingo as “collateral damage,” or in Hebrew nezek agavi, the Hebrew acronym reads in English as NAZA.
Collateral damage refers to what are considered “acceptable” civilian casualties when military targets are being targeted from the air, and how such decisions are taken – whether by human beings, automatic surveillance, or AI-operated systems.
The reason this issue has received so much international attention and domestic interest within certain circles in Israel is that the number of Palestinians killed in the Gaza Strip following the Hamas-led massacre and abduction of Israelis from the Gaza border communities on October 7, 2023, and the subsequent war since, has reached over 70,000 persons.
The problem is that at least two-thirds of these 70,000+ fatalities are believed to be “non-involved” civilians, who may be considered to be “approved” collateral damage victims.
I say non-involved in quotation marks, because there are large sections of Israeli society that do not believe there is such a thing as Palestinians in the Gaza Strip who are not involved, one way or another, with Hamas and its activities.
I happen to believe that just as not all Israelis can be held responsible for acts of wrongdoing associated with what our government does, or held responsible for a genocide against the Palestinians that was not and is not being planned or committed by Israel, the Palestinians are not all responsible for the crimes of Hamas.
So even though there are no lovers of Zion among the Palestinian inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians as a whole are not responsible for the crimes of Hamas.
Like most other people, journalists and non-journalists who have commented on NAZA and reacted to it, I have not actually seen the film, and my information comes from sources I consider reliable.
At the same time, I believe that even without having seen the film, we can assume, based on its subject matter and what Abraham and Szor have said about the film, that they are disturbed by the excessive number of Gazan civilians killed in Gaza since October 2023, and the way “collateral damage” is defined by the IDF for military purposes in the Gaza Strip.
We can also assume that, since both Abraham and Szor were among the four winners (including two Palestinians) of the Oscar Award for Best Documentary Film in February 2025 for No Other Land, they are among the Israelis who are perturbed by Israel’s apparent (though undeclared and not admitted) policy of changing the status of large sections of Judea and Samaria to the detriment of the Palestinians.
The film records the events that led to the gradual destruction by the IDF of a location called Masafer Yatta in the southern Hebron hills, and the de facto expulsion of most of its Palestinian population.
Criticism across the board
Holding the critical positions about the Israeli government and the IDF that the two filmmakers hold is not in itself a crime. It certainly does not call for severe punishment. I believe it is evidence of the existence of free speech in a democracy.
Nevertheless, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to propose a bill to implement citizenship revocation for defaming IDF personnel, along with another bill that would increase the fines on defamation charges 20-fold.
Netanyahu also criticized the opposition parties (especially the Democrats) for failing to condemn the film and its makers, even though neither he nor they had yet seen the film.
Culture and Sports Minister Miki Zohar was also quick to demand citizenship revocation from the Interior Ministry (since there has been no serving interior minister in Israel for over a year, the demand was referred to Netanyahu).
He approached Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) head David Zini to open an urgent investigation concerning the source of the information and materials used in the film – i.e., the 24 persons who were anonymously interviewed.
This, of course, makes some sense, given that the 24 allegedly disclosed secret security information and that some of it was false, as some military sources have claimed, based on reports by those who actually saw the film.
There is no doubt that the current onslaught on Abraham and Szor deserves to be described by the Hebrew term aleihum, which means frequently unjustified, harsh criticism, and slander.
Nevertheless, even though I sympathize with the basic motivation of the two, based on past personal experience from activities I participated in over issues concerning Arab-Israeli, Palestinian-Israeli relations and peace-making efforts, I believe that unless you are completely reckless and irresponsible, you must take into consideration the possible legal implications of your actions – for yourself and for others.
In the current case, the 24 interviewees (should their identities be uncovered) are the most likely to suffer the most serious consequences, as they divulged information obtained while serving in the relevant military and intelligence units, and they could even be found to have committed treason.
Furthermore, though the alleged motivation for divulging such information is, under the circumstances, to stop what one believes to be a serious breach of international law – whether advertently or inadvertently – by one’s state, in fact, serious, irreversible damage might be done to the state, given that those viewing the film are not necessarily neutral bystanders who merely seek justice.
Incidentally, one argument Abraham made in an interview with Raviv Drucker from Channel 13, after the latter watched the film and expressed some reservations about it, is worth mentioning.
Abraham argued that NAZA might have been superfluous had the free media in Israel opened the issue of collateral damage in the early stages of the Israel-Hamas war. Drucker, well known for his serious investigative reporting, admitted that Abraham was right, and that not enough had been done.
Nevertheless, the question remains whether deeper delving into the issue by the media would have helped.
So far, the media delving into the issue of Jewish violence against Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, and the failure of the authorities to react effectively, has not stopped the violence, even though it has been accompanied by condemnations by both Netanyahu and Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir.
The writer has written journalistic and academic articles, as well as several books, on international relations, Zionism, Israeli politics, and parliamentarism. From 1994 to 2010, she worked at the Knesset Library and the Knesset Research and Information Center.