Influencers, Influencing

The release of the documentary Naza, directed by Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, has ignited a strong response from Israelis who argue that the film presents a highly selective account of the war in Gaza while leaving out information that is essential to understanding Israel’s military actions.

The film, which premiered at the 2026 Venice Film Festival and received the festival’s Special Jury Prize, is based in part on testimony from 24 anonymous Israeli intelligence officers and soldiers.

Israeli commentator Matan Yaffe said,  “I think that Yuval Abraham and Rachel Shor have done a terrible thing.”

He added, “By the way, it’s not because his positions are opposite to mine. If someone who holds exactly the same position as me did the same thing, I would say the same thing about him.”

One can feel the anger of Israelis who are being misrepresented.

Yaffe specifically objected to the film’s characterization as a documentary investigation. “The interview with Raviv Drucker was not an investigation into what happened in Gaza, but a propaganda film,” he wrote.

“It’s also allowed to make a film that promotes this worldview,” Yaffe wrote. “But be honest, and say that.

His criticism centered on what he described as selective information. “Don’t take a political agenda, choose the evidence that serves it, ignore the voices and facts that contradict it, and package the result as a documentary film that shows the world ‘the reality,’” he wrote.

“After all, in this film, there is no reality, but false propaganda, a product of Yuval Abraham’s sharp and distorted mind.”

The exchange between Abraham and Israeli journalist Raviv Drucker has become an important part of the controversy surrounding the film.

Drucker questioned how allegations from 24 anonymous sources could be independently verified and challenged Abraham about the lack of identifying information that would allow individual allegations to be confirmed or refuted.

The IDF has denied the allegations made in the film. 

He says, “Drucker pressures for testimony that describes hundreds of attacks, and then it turns out there is no evidence for the hundreds of cases, except for a few Israel פציפיים.”

Yaffe also objected to the way the film uses individual testimony and imagery to establish an emotional response, referring to one soldier quoted in the documentary as saying, “I really enjoyed it. It was really fun.”

Yaffe argued that placing such a statement within a film about civilian deaths necessarily directs viewers toward a particular conclusion.

For Yaffe, the larger problem was not simply what the film shows but what it leaves outside the frame. He contrasted images of children dying in Gaza with images of Israelis eating in restaurants in Tel Aviv.

“What did I learn from this about the IDF’s fire policy? Nothing,” he wrote. “But I understood exactly what I’m supposed to feel about Israelis.”

Yaffe illustrated his criticism by imagining the same filmmaking technique being applied to American military operations.

“Give me a budget, an editing room, and access to American soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan, and I’ll make you the same movie,” he wrote. “24 harsh testimonies, children dying, almost no al-Qaeda or ISIS, no attacks, no officers explaining the decisions.”

His conclusion was, “Everything is true, and everything is manipulation.”

Yaffe’s objection, he emphasized, was “Not that Yuval Abraham has an agenda, because we all have one,” and, “Not that he wants to influence – I also want to influence.”

Instead, he argued that the problem comes when a particular interpretation is presented as the complete reality. “But he takes a one-sided narrative, dresses it up as a documentary and presents it to the world as if it’s the reality itself.”

He said he believes the film’s portrayal of Israel goes beyond legitimate criticism of military conduct. “And when this narrative belittles hundreds of thousands of soldiers, portrays the Jewish state as a killing machine and serves the international pressure on Israel, in my eyes it’s an anti-Semitic outrage,” Yaffe wrote.

He also emphasized that disagreement over the film crosses ordinary political divisions within Israel.

“I’m reading posts against the film from people I disagree with very much. People I’ll argue with tomorrow morning,” he wrote. “But here, we’re on the same side. Because Zionism is not the belief that Israel is perfect,” Yaffe wrote. “It’s the willingness to fight so that it will be better, and at the same time fight against those who are working to make it weaker.”

Another Israeli commentator, Senia Valdberg, challenged the film’s framing by asking what he described as basic contextual questions, questioning whether viewers are shown the extent of humanitarian assistance Israel has provided to Gaza during the war, the nature of Hamas’s stated objectives, Palestinian education, and the demographic changes in Gaza during the conflict.

Valdberg repeatedly asked where such information appears in the documentary and argued that its absence demonstrates the selective nature of the presentation.

“If the movie is really about ‘collateral damage,’ then the IDF should be the example of what to do, and not the opposite!” Valdberg wrote.

He argued that a film dealing with civilian casualties should also address the measures Israel has taken to provide humanitarian assistance during the war and the difficulty of conducting warfare against Hamas.

His proposed conclusion was that war inevitably produces casualties but that Israel’s conduct should be understood in comparison with the conduct of other armies throughout history.

“It would be nice at the end of the movie to say: ‘And after you’ve seen all this, you’ll know – the IDF has the best statistics in history in terms of the number of civilians

it managed to save during combat,’” Valdberg wrote.

“War is bad. It’s hard. It’s terrible. There are always casualties, so it’s better to have peace. But if there’s already a war, know that what you’ve just seen here is the best case in history of a person’s life during war. No army has ever done better.”

Valdberg concluded that the documentary’s stated focus on collateral damage does not explain the film’s overall presentation. “Because it’s not a movie about ‘collateral damage.’ It’s a propaganda movie against Israel.”

In fact, there has been an AI-generated spoof film made of the original film in question that has also been making the rounds. It shows the filmmakers hating Israel, going to Gaza, and being attacked by the very people they declared innocent.

The Nameless One, a retired IDF officer and my friend, has focused his comments on the broader military situation facing Israel and the region.

“There are two dramas that actually happened,” he says, “Israel blew up the command center of Hezbullah in Ali Taher mountains – it’s a massive blow to their ability to threaten Israel with a full scale October 7 style invasion.”

He also pointed to developments involving the Houthis in Yemen, writing, “And the Houthies in Yemen took over the west coast – and practically control Bab Al Mandab strait.”

He asserts, “It shows how competent Israel is.”

In a country that values free speech, Israel’s influencers have presented another point of view – much needed in a world where a propaganda film receives high honors at a film festival.