The “NAZA” Saga

What is “NAZA”?

The “NAZA” controversy broke when the film debuted at the 83rd Venice International Film Festival in the eponymous city, where it was received with great acclaim, garnering nearly 25 minutes of a standing ovation and winning an award.

The film, co-created by Israelis Rachel Szor and Yuval Abraham, features the supposed confessions of Israeli soldiers who belonged to the elite intelligence unit known as Unit 8200. They are filmed at night, in silhouette, on the rooftops of Tel Aviv, and thus cannot be identified. They confess to witnessing decisions made to maximize civilian deaths, including a claim that an airstrike was planned that was expected to result in 500 civilian casualties.

“NAZA” takes its name from the Hebrew acronym for “nezek agavi,” which means “collateral damage.” I watched only a small clip of the film, but it reportedly turns collateral damage assessment into a sinister activity — you can picture the cartoon: A bunch of evil Israelis with scraggly beards, giant hook noses, and beady eyes rubbing their hands together and cackling over their laptops as they figure out the maximum number of innocent people they can kill with their dastardly airstrikes.

In fact, collateral damage assessment is required by international humanitarian law (IHL). Failing to do so is illegal and may even constitute a war crime.

“NAZA” has turned an action that is required by IHL into an immoral and depraved act when conducted by the Israeli army.

There are so many problems with the film, one hardly knows where to begin, but the great journalistic crime is that nothing that is stated in the documentary can be verified.

Another problem is that the anonymous soldiers who are bearing such a heavy burden of guilt could have made a difference in a real, tangible way if their claims were true by going through the appropriate channels. Israel has mechanisms in place for reporting abuse. But the way these guys went about it doesn’t help a soul and doesn’t change a thing, because the IDF has no idea who they are and can’t verify their claims.

Before showing it to any Israeli who might have been able to make a difference, they displayed it on the international stage, because they knew how it would be received. A 25-minute standing ovation and prize are worth selling out your country and people.

So that should make you very skeptical about their motivations.

The IDF response

The IDF published a detailed 10-page rebuttal of the claims made in “NAZA,” which they had to do without watching the film for two reasons: one, the film’s creators did not provide an opportunity for the military to prescreen the film so they could respond, which is what journalists are supposed to do; and, two, despite the IDF’s request to watch the film after it was shown publicly (but only in limited venues) so it could offer a response, the creators of the film ignored the request. Interesting, huh? What do you think that says about their motivations?

Instead, the IDF had to rely on the report of a representative who attended a private screening, as well as public statements by and interviews of the creators of the film.

The IDF addressed the problems of the film in two parts: the overarching issues and the key allegations.

The main flaws

The IDF identified two main flaws: the incompetence of the participants and the journalistic malfeasance of the creators.

According to the military, the soldiers who were interviewed offered opinions on matters that went beyond their level of competence. They worked in intelligence, not in the operational bodies that plan and approve strikes, which are separate units. A preliminary intelligence assessment is a far cry from a final plan, so they may have made assumptions based on those early assessments that are either inaccurate or completely false.

“Many of their claims show insufficient knowledge or understanding of the later stages of the targeting process beyond their assignments. The result is substantial errors and misrepresentations of IDF targeting policy,” the IDF said.

In its report, the military describes a mechanism for planning and approving strikes that includes many layers.

1. Commanders examine a proposed strike to assess its military advantage.
2. Commanders assess the proportionality of the strike: Does the harm to civilians exceed the military advantage?
3. Commanders then plan ways to minimize harm to civilians.
4. Military professionals review the plans to minimize harm. First they assess the degree of damage, injuries, and loss of life that might be incurred. Then they try to find a way to reduce that even further.
5. Lawyers assess the legal issues and set up conditions that must be followed.
6. Commanders then review the proposed strike and decide whether to authorize it.

But even after all that, last-minute decisions can alter the plans for strikes. For example, officials may not authorize the strike because the civilian cost is too high. They may send it back for tweaking. They may require more changes. They may add restrictions to further protect civilians.

And after even all of that, a strike may be aborted at the last minute because they detected an unexpected civilian presence.

The IDF also said it identified a failure to follow the most elementary journalistic practices. The creators relied on anonymous sources without identifying their military roles. The participants didn’t cite any actual military orders. They did not provide any records, such as news reports, that could have corroborated the soldiers’ testimonies.

In fact, they didn’t provide a scintilla of corroboration or any information that could help any viewer independently verify the soldiers’ claims. The film’s participants failed to provide specific targets, dates, locations, reported casualties — literally anything specific that could be fact checked — relying on vague, general assertions instead. It’s outrageous.

Finally, the soldiers omitted some pretty serious context. The film downplays the horrific attack of Oct. 7 that necessitated a military response, as well as the continuing deadly threat Hamas poses to Israelis. It leaves out the context within which Hamas operates, embedding its fighters (who dress in civilian clothes) and military installations within civilian infrastructure such as schools, mosques, hospitals, United Nations facilities, and even residential buildings.. And it makes no mention of the IDF’s strenuous efforts to minimize harm to civilians by issuing evacuation warnings and facilitating humanitarian aid into the Strip, as well as the excruciating planning that goes into each strike.

The main allegations

Finally, the IDF examined the main allegations of the film, such as the “500 civilian deaths” claim. In this case, the military said no strike was ever planned with an expected civilian death toll anywhere near that number, and indeed no strike has ever been reported with such a high toll or anything even close to it.

Addressing the accusations regarding artificial intelligence, the military explained that AI programs such as Lavender do not select targets, nor do they generate targets. Contrary to the claim that the IDF does not assess the number of civilian casualties, the army said that it does the best it can within the constraints of war, as it’s difficult and often impossible to count the civilian casualties in hostile territory. The military also countered the claim that a belief took hold in the military that all Palestinian civilians are involved and therefore legitimate targets. And so on and so forth. I recommend reading the whole thing.

In addition to that, a group of Israelis produced a documentary called “NAZA: The Real Story.” It’s nearly an hour long. I only had time to watch the first few minutes, but it’s already breathtaking. Please take the time. You won’t regret it.

Who are “NAZA’s” producers?

They are terrible people. The end.

Just kidding. I mean, I’m not kidding that they’re terrible people. I’m kidding about the end, because I would like to tell you more about their terribleness.

Since I love quoting myself, I’ll give it to you from an article I wrote about Abraham’s alleged ties to Hamas. Shocking, but not surprising.

Investigative journalist Eitan Fischberger dropped a bombshell on X: One of the producers of the anti-Israel documentary “NAZA,” released at the Venice International Film Festival Thursday, has had a longstanding relationship with a member of Hamas.

… Meanwhile, it turns out that Abraham considered a member of Hamas a “close friend and colleague.”

In 2019, Abraham co-founded a Gaza-based media project called “Across the Wall” with Ahmed Alnaouq. “So who is Ahmed Alnaouq?” Fischberger wrote on X.

“Well, he’s the VP, treasurer, and outreach officer of a Hamas front group called ‘Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor,’ which has been designated by Israel as a terrorist organization since 2015.”

Euro-Med, headed by Hamas operative Ramy Abdu, is the outlet that originated the “IDF rape dogs” lie promoted by The New York Times.

Alnaouq’s brother, Ayman, was a Hamas terrorist killed by Israeli security forces in 2014 whom Alnaouq referred to as a resistance fighter. Hamas posted a martyr photo of him in which he is pictured wearing the green Hamas headband and holding a rifle.

“I came to understand that resistance fighters are nothing more than young people who loved life and loved their homeland, but left their comfortable lives and joined the resistance to confront the Israeli occupation, and defend their homeland and land that had been taken from them since the Nakba of the Palestinian people in 1948,” Alnaouq told an Arab media outlet in 2017.

In 2021, Abraham described the terrorist’s death as a “very great tragedy.”

Charming fellow, no?

This is all besides his contributions over the years to +972 Magazine, a self-hating Israeli outlet that is like Al Jazeera, except that they’re not paid by Qatar. They just hate Israel for free.

I don’t know too much about Rachel Szor, the other co-creator, but she appears to be made in the same mold as Abraham. And The Guardian produced the film, whose anti-Israel bias resembles the BBC’s. With such a strong hatred of Israel present in everyone who had a hand in this film, and dare I say an affinity for Hamas, the outcome is not surprising.

The backlash in Israel

The film ignited intense backlash in Israel. Some of it was over the top. Israel’s Culture Minister Miki Zohar said he would move to strip the creators of their Israeli citizenship. Not gonna happen. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to introduce a bill that would strip the citizenship of any Israeli who defames the IDF. Also not gonna happen.

While the feelings of anger and betrayal are very real and very understandable, some of the reactions were also far more balanced and reasonable than what I just described. As I noted earlier, the IDF requested to screen the film so it could respond to the claims. The creators of “NAZA” did not see fit to fulfill that request, and the IDF went ahead and published a rebuttal that provides a robust defense of the military in a way that’s fair and measured.

IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir ordered a probe into the creators and participants of the film to find out if they committed breaches of security and leaked classified information. I can see how taking action against the film’s participants can have a chilling effect on free speech, but what if they did break laws while creating this film? I think this response is not unreasonable.

Just this week, Netanyahu joined his voice to Zamir’s, writing a letter to top-ranking officials to demand an investigation “against the participants in the film ‘NAZA’ and bring them to trial for serious information security offenses, criminal defamation, and harm to Israel’s political and security interests.”

Helping Hamas

The best way to help Palestinians after witnessing abuse by members of the military is to go through the proper channels. The IDF has a mechanism in place to report abuse and investigate and learn lessons for the future to prevent actual harm to real people. If a strike goes awry, the military conducts a learning pause to understand what went wrong and improve practices.

Abraham and Szor and the soldiers in the film didn’t do that.

They couldn’t care less about saving Palestinian lives, because their film will not help a single Palestinian — and they surely knew that. The IDF cannot verify a single claim and so can do nothing about the allegations, which in any case seem rather fanciful.

Instead, the film will hurt Palestinians, because it plays into Hamas’s strategy of making the international community channel its rage toward Israel instead of placing the blame squarely where it belongs — on Hamas. This only encourages Hamas to keep its tight grip on power in Gaza, where, as anti-Hamas Palestinian-American activist Ahmed Fouad Al-Khatib argues, the group is holding two million Gazans hostage.