Fueling Hostility, Not Reform: A Response to NAZA documentary
When news broke about the reception and acclaim surrounding NAZA—the documentary directed by Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor—my immediate reaction was a mix of surprise and sheer frustration.
How does a film reliant on masked “witnesses,” unverified testimonials, and zero cross-examination command instant international acclaim? Compare this to the massive, systemic scandals of our era—like the institutional child abuse exposed within the Catholic Church, where thousands of victims came forward openly, at huge personal cost, to name names and present evidence. The contrast, in global outrage and immediate, uncritical acceptance, is choking.
Yet, when it comes to Israel, a production built on covered faces and curated narratives becomes an unquestioned “Guinness Record” of truth overnight. Anonymous testimonials consistently prevail over contextual proof whenever the IDF or Israel is criticized.
Co-director Yuval Abraham claimed the film was created to “spark a public discussion about the Israeli government’s actions.” But if the genuine goal is to spark a meaningful, honest conversation, you must present full context and transparent information. You must give people the complete picture so they can make an informed judgment. True dialogue requires context, nuanced expert analysis, and an honest acknowledgment of the existential security threats Israel faces.
Reading a piece by Lt. Col. (Res.) Sarit Zehavi at the Times of Israel, I couldn’t help but ask: why were educated, informed security experts completely excluded from this narrative? Where was the discussion of local security threats, designated military zones, or legal property frameworks?
If the intention of Israeli citizens involved in this project was to authentically reform or improve the actions of the IDF, why bypass their own country? Why seek accolades, red carpets, and prestige at Western film festivals rather than doing the hard, grinding work of advocacy within their own society? Seeking international pressure feels less like a genuine effort for domestic change and more like a pursuit of global prestige at the expense of one’s own community.
Some Israelis know that internal domestic channels and political avenues in Israel have become quite inaccessible to raise awareness, but this is not the reason to seek international support for those who are using any excuse to criticize Israel and harass Jews around the world.
After sitting with these thoughts, the initial indignation gave way to a familiar weariness. Because post-October 7—and long before it—the rapid circulation and uncritical acceptance of unverified or partially true headlines about IDF operations have reinforced the sense that much of the Western public is eager to accept narratives that delegitimize Israel.
Much of the Western public exhibits an insatiable appetite for any narrative that delegitimizes or criminalizes the State of Israel, or its IDF. We see this cycle play out constantly: initial, unverified claims or inflated casualty figures following an Israeli strike make front-page headlines and send thousands into the streets in protest. Days later, when independent reviews reveal the original reporting was false or misleading, the retraction is buried in quiet, footnote-sized corrections that nobody reads. The damage is already done. Without verifiable identity, specific context, or cross-examination, some audiences trust and applaud the authors’ narrative on faith.
None of this is to claim that any military, including the IDF, operates flawlessly or above critique. Evaluating military ethics in asymmetric warfare is agonizingly complex.
How do you calculate proportionality when fighting an enemy that deliberately embeds itself behind its own civilian population? When terrorist cells operate out of homes, schools, and hospitals, using human shields, every military response carries tragic potential costs. But judging operations strictly by their heartbreaking outcomes—while entirely ignoring the explicit strategy of human shielding that causes them—presents a fundamentally distorted view of reality.
Ultimately, films like this are not designed to improve IDF behavior, protect civilians, or initiate an educated conversation among informed citizens. Instead, they serve a far more cynical purpose: supplying endless fodder to a Western audience eager for reasons to justify its hostility toward Israel. Real dialogue requires transparency, nuance, and an honest accounting of the existential threats a nation under siege faces. Without those, a film isn’t a documentary—it’s just fuel for a pre-existing fire.
Michal Gasco, MD
Boston, 2026
