“The film 'NAZA' presents a distorted, misleading and disingenuous picture of the IDF’s target planning and striking process. The film's narrative is based on substantial factual errors stemming from manipulative misrepresentations of reality,” the military said Thursday morning, responding to the film by Yuval Abraham and Rachel Shor nearly a month after it sparked controversy.
The IDF then listed several points that it said contradicted claims made in the film.
Gallery
IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir; filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Shor
(Photo: IDF, Stefano Rellandini/AFP)
In the first, the military said: “Binding IDF directives explicitly, comprehensively and clearly distinguish between military operatives and uninvolved civilians in Gaza. IDF targeting processes are fundamentally based on this distinction, prohibit intentionally directing strikes against civilians, and require mitigating the possibility of harm to them to the greatest extent feasible.”
In its second point, the IDF said: “The IDF has never planned, approved or carried out any strike in Gaza in which 500 civilians or anything close to that number were expected to be killed. Nor has anyone seriously alleged that an IDF strike caused deaths on that scale or anything close to it.”
“Artificial intelligence has never independently selected targets to strike in the IDF,” the military said in its third point. “The identification of targets to strike is done only by authorized intelligence officers, strikes are planned by relevant professionals, and the decision whether to strike is made by operational commanders.”
According to the fourth point, “Binding IDF directives have never granted automatic authorization for strikes against targets placing a fixed number of civilians at risk (such as 20 in a strike against a junior operative or 200 in a strike against a senior commander, as a person in the film claims).”
In its fifth point, the military said that “‘Lavender’ is not a database of targets approved to strike, but a database that assists intelligence analysts.”
“Binding IDF directives do not permit an evacuation warning for an area to be treated as authorization to carry out strikes there while disregarding civilians who remain,” the military said in its sixth point.
Finally, in its seventh point, the IDF said: “The IDF does not ignore the aftermath of its strikes but acts to assess them, including with regard to unintended civilian harm, contrary to the claim in the film. These assessments have prompted reviews of hundreds of incidents during the hostilities and provide a basis for lessons learned.”
‘Distortion of reality through manipulative editing of interviews’
The IDF Spokesperson’s Unit later said in a statement: “Had the filmmakers conducted adequate verification and corroboration of facts in good faith, as professional standards require, they could have identified the substantial errors presented in the film. The end result shows that they did not.”
“Many errors arise because the interviewees, described as having served in IDF intelligence roles, usually refer to only limited, initial stages dealing with intelligence, rather than the much broader process of planning and approving strikes. That process is not the responsibility of intelligence, but of operational bodies that manage and carry out targeting processes.
“Accordingly, it is apparent that in various cases interviewees raise speculation and assumptions without a factual basis.
From the film; 'Distortion of reality'
(Photo: Courtesy of the Venice Film Festival)
“The filmmakers chose not to show many of the other individuals involved in the full targeting process – those responsible for planning that mitigates civilian harm, legal advisers who review proposed strikes, and commanders responsible for approving or rejecting them. The result, as noted, is an incorrect and highly misleading portrayal of reality.
“To fit the narrative the film seeks to promote, the filmmakers also omit context essential to understanding the war in Gaza and the IDF’s conduct during it.
“The film does not give due weight to Israel’s security reasons for operating in Gaza and the October 7th Massacre; to Hamas’ deliberate strategy of embedding itself within the civilian population, which is the root cause of harm to civilians; or the countless actions and methods the IDF employed to mitigate civilian harm, including warnings before strikes, selection of munitions and appropriate strike planning, facilitating humanitarian aid and more.
“The processes and decisions the film omits show what the IDF’s effort to protect civilians meant in practice – additional required intelligence, plans changed, strikes cancelled and military opportunities forgone. These decisions restricted the use of force solely because of assessed risks to civilians.
“Particularly troubling is the film's further distortion of reality through manipulative editing of interviews, irresponsible allusions to historical atrocities, and its false and baseless attribution of malicious intentions to the IDF.
“Even the film’s title inverts reality. “NAZA” is an acronym of the Hebrew term “Nezek Agavi”, which means “collateral damage” in English. This is a professional term used by every law-abiding military worldwide to describe incidental harm to civilians resulting from a strike on a military objective, which serves commanders to assess the lawfulness of the strike and adopt measures to mitigate harm to civilians to the greatest extent feasible.
“Paradoxically, the film portrays the exceptional effort and detail the IDF devotes to estimating civilian harm in strikes as indifference to civilian lives.
“In reality, assessing expected harm to civilians in strikes is a requirement under international law. The IDF conducts this assessment so commanders can determine whether a strike is lawful, direct additional precautions, modify the strike plan or cancel the strike, all to mitigate the possibility of harm to civilians to the greatest extent feasible, as IDF commanders did many times during the war.
“The IDF is open to hearing genuine criticism of its conduct and attaches importance to learning from substantiated allegations and continually improving its practices. It is bound by and committed to international humanitarian law, its operational procedures are designed to implement those legal obligations, and it operates dedicated units and mechanisms to mitigate civilian harm.
“The IDF does not disavow deficiencies and errors that occurred during the war; they do occur in complex combat situations. Suspected violations of the law or IDF directives are examined and, where warranted, addressed through disciplinary action, criminal investigation or other measures.
“Contrary to accepted practice, the filmmakers did not submit their allegations to the IDF for examination and response before publication, nor did they provide a copy of the film after its screening, although the IDF requested it. Therefore, in assessing the film’s contents, the IDF relied on a detailed account from a representative who attended a public screening, as well as other public accounts.”
The film “NAZA” presents what it describes as troubling testimony from 24 soldiers, allegedly from Unit 8200, the IDF's elite signals intelligence and cyber unit, about IDF operations during the war in Gaza.
The film, which was shot on rooftops in Tel Aviv during the war, includes interviewees who claim they were involved in “war crimes and genocide” and describe policies relating to collateral damage, bombardments and targeted killings.
One of the film’s central themes is the use of artificial intelligence, which interviewees claim was used, among other things, to recommend targets for assassination based on intercepted phone communications, including in cases in which a strike was expected to kill family members of targeted individuals.