The Dark Appeal of NAZA
The hysteria surrounding the global showings of the film NAZA speaks volumes about the times we are living in and the challenges facing Israel and Jews worldwide. What is so notable about the event was not only the fact that it won the Special Jury Prize, but it received an unprecedented twenty-four minute standing ovation.
The film’s claim that Israel deliberately and systematically targeted civilians in Gaza is a serious charge that deserves serious scrutiny.
Indeed, the IDF has issued an extensive and responsible rebuttal, demonstrating that the film distorts facts, particularly about critical context: the film only lightly covers Israel’s experience on October 7, downplays elements of Hamas’s embedding within civilian areas, and does not illustrate the full extent of Israel’s record of efforts to avoid or limit civilian casualties.
More troubling than the film itself is the eagerness, even glee, with which some in the mainstream media have treated it as confirmation that genocide is occurring, with a few commentators comparing Israel’s denials to Holocaust denial or Nuremberg-era rationalizations. Others argue the film shows how indifference to civilian deaths can shade into deliberate mass killing.
Part of this reaction reflects confirmation bias: Many in the audience already believed the genocide charge before seeing the film. These accusations have circulated for nearly three years, and for those already convinced by the charge or on the fence, the film could be interpreted as validating it. Confirmation is always satisfying, especially when one’s views have been challenged, and that helps explain some of the reactions.
More significantly, I believe, the sheer joy at the film’s revelations is often based on something that is not talked enough about and deserves attention: the charge of genocide offers non-Jews an opportunity to absolve themselves of their own perceived guilt.
When the Jewish community considers how the Holocaust was treated, we talk about how conversations about what happened were largely avoided in the early years. Then breakthroughs happened and there was a new openness to commemorate and memorialize the tragedy. And, in more recent years the struggle is to keep it relevant as time moves on.
What is generally not discussed is the impact of all the activities (museums, books, films, memorials) on the broader public. The combination of guilt and anger hovers over these matters, guilt that responsibility for the Holocaust spans Christian society in the 20th century and for centuries prior, and resentment that they are being portrayed as bad people who allowed this to happen.
Israel for some time has provided an outlet for these feelings. Implications that Jews too are guilty of genocide realign the moral equation. This dynamic intensified after October 7. This time, Jews are not merely victims of a genocidal attack, though Hamas’s assault was exactly that, but are instead cast as the perpetrators of genocide. A strange perception both of a new Israeli vulnerability in the 10/7 massacre, and the overwhelming Israeli strength demonstrated through its counterattack provided the backdrop for a full-scale campaign against the Jewish state.
Striking in all this, including in reactions to the film, is the willful disregard of the horrific massacre that provoked an Israeli response. Less surprising, perhaps, is that Israel’s harshest critics have seized on the Gaza war to advance the claim that Israel is a systematic perpetrator of genocide. The nature of the conflict, particularly the fact that Hamas deliberately embeds itself in civilian areas, makes the possibility of civilian casualties more likely and opens up a plausibly realistic notion that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, even though the IDF issued evacuation warnings and Hamas itself violated international law by operating among civilians.
While Israel’s conduct in Gaza is a legitimate subject for deeper investigation, the over-the-top reaction at the Venice festival and in the media to this film requires a focus on its source and purpose.
If, in fact, that combination of guilt and resentment over the Holocaust is a powerful factor in the reaction to Israel in Gaza, we need to find ways to speak to these emotions and how they produce a distorted and exaggerated view of Israel’s behavior, even as there is room for criticism.
Finding the balance in looking at these matters is important. It is best to be open to legitimate criticism of Israel’s actions and avoid jumping to the conclusion that all these critiques are antisemitic in nature, though some surely are.
At the same time, assaults on Israel’s legitimacy, as have been present in some reactions to this film, must be exposed for what they are: unresolved guilt projected onto Israel, not an honest accounting of facts on the ground.
Striking this balance is essential, both to counter the campaign against Israel’s legitimacy and to preserve the broader public support Israel needs to withstand it.
