Controversial Film 'NAZA' Slammed by IDF for 'Distorted Picture'!
The documentary "NAZA" has sparked a major controversy, with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) denouncing it as manipulative and factually erroneous. Meanwhile, co-producer The Guardian vehemently defends the film's rigorous verification process and the credibility of its sources, challenging the IDF's portrayal of its operations in Gaza.
The documentary film “NAZA,” which premiered at the Venice Film Festival to a 24.5-minute standing ovation, has ignited a significant controversy with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). The film, which has also screened at the San Sebastián and New York film festivals and is set to open in U.S. theaters before streaming free on The Guardian website in late November, is co-produced by the British newspaper and directed by Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor.
The IDF has vehemently condemned “NAZA,” labeling it as “manipulative,” “misleading,” and “based on substantial factual errors.” In a formal statement, the IDF asserted that it was not afforded the opportunity to view the documentary prior to its premiere and claimed the directors failed to present the allegations within the film to the IDF before its public release. The film's title, “NAZA,” is derived from the Hebrew phrase “Nezek Agavi,” meaning “collateral damage,” a central theme explored in the documentary.
Addressing specific claims made in the film, the IDF outlined several points of contention. They stated that their operations are conducted under binding directives that “explicitly” differentiate between military combatants and uninvolved civilians. Furthermore, the IDF refuted an anonymous contributor's assertion in the film that it had ever planned or executed a strike in Gaza resulting in the deaths of 500 civilians. Crucially, the IDF denied ever employing artificial intelligence (AI) to select targets for strikes, emphasizing that such planning is exclusively carried out by “relevant professionals.”
The IDF also criticized the filmmaking methodology, noting that all 24 contributors in “NAZA” remain anonymous, filmed against a nighttime Tel Aviv skyline. The defense force suggested that “it is apparent that in various cases interviewees raise speculation and assumptions without a factual basis.” Additionally, the IDF contended that the filmmakers omitted vital context, such as depicting the full chain of command, which they stated includes roles specifically dedicated to “mitigating civilian harm.” The IDF further accused the film of downplaying the severity of the October 7 attacks on Israel, which resulted in over 1,000 fatalities and more than 250 hostages being taken. Concluding its statement, the IDF declared, “The film ‘NAZA’ presents a distorted, misleading and disingenuous picture of the IDF’s target planning and striking process,” and that its “narrative is based on substantial factual errors stemming from manipulative misrepresentations of reality.”
In response to the IDF’s accusations, a spokesperson for Guardian News & Media, speaking on behalf of the filmmakers, staunchly defended the documentary. They countered the IDF’s attempt to characterize the 24 participants as junior-ranking officers involved only in the early stages of the targeting process, stating this portrayal is “false.” The Guardian clarified that the participants encompass officers and soldiers who were engaged in multiple stages of the targeting process in Gaza, including intelligence gathering, operations, and the final authorization procedures.
The Guardian elaborated on the rigorous verification process undertaken to assess the credibility of the testimonies featured in the film. This process included a thorough review of leaked classified documents, detailed verification of specific strikes, and corroboration through a broader network of confidential journalistic sources who did not appear on camera. Over a period of three years, the filmmakers collectively interviewed more than 100 sources familiar with the IDF systems employed in the conflict in Gaza, including senior-ranking commanders directly involved in authorizing strikes.
The statement from The Guardian concluded with a strong affirmation of its position: “The Guardian stands fully behind the film, which builds on three years of detailed reporting by the Guardian and our partners.” Furthermore, they highlighted that several highly respected news organizations, including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Associated Press, have subsequently corroborated the IDF’s use of AI-driven systems in the Gaza offensive and the loosening of safeguards intended to protect civilians.