IDF accuses ‘NAZA’ Gaza documentary of ‘distorting facts’ over civilian deaths
Military rejects claims about AI-selected targets and says filmmakers failed to seek its response before release
The Israeli military has accused the makers of an award-winning documentary about the war in Gaza of misleading viewers over civilian deaths and how airstrikes were authorised.
In a detailed response published on Thursday, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) rejected allegations made in NAZA, which features testimony from Israeli military personnel about the targeting of Palestinians during the war.
The military described the film as presenting a “distorted, misleading, and disingenuous picture” of its operations, accusing its creators of relying on incomplete accounts from intelligence personnel who were not involved in the final decisions to launch strikes.
The documentary, directed by Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, won a special jury prize at the Venice Film Festival last month.
Among its most serious allegations is that Israeli forces approved strikes expected to kill hundreds of civilians and used artificial intelligence to identify thousands of targets.
The IDF rejected those claims, saying it had never authorised an attack in Gaza in which 500 civilian deaths, or anything approaching that figure, were anticipated.
It also disputed allegations that strikes against junior Hamas operatives could proceed with an expected 20 civilian casualties, or 200 in attacks against senior commanders.
The military said commanders were required to assess each proposed strike individually, weighing the expected military benefit against the risk to civilians.
On artificial intelligence, it insisted that computer systems were used to help intelligence officers analyse information, rather than independently select people for attack.
The IDF also defended its use of Lavender, an intelligence database examined in the documentary, saying inclusion in the system did not automatically make someone a target.
A central criticism concerned the filmmakers’ reliance on anonymous interviewees who had served in military intelligence.
The IDF argued that their accounts largely covered the early stages of identifying potential targets, without reflecting the subsequent involvement of operational commanders and legal advisers.
It also accused the filmmakers of failing to give sufficient attention to the 7 October Hamas attacks, the group’s use of civilian areas for military purposes and Israeli measures intended to reduce civilian casualties.
The military further claimed that the filmmakers had neither submitted their allegations for comment before release nor provided a copy of the documentary when requested.
Its response was prepared using notes from a military representative who attended a public screening, alongside publicly available material.
The Guardian, which produced the documentary, has previously defended its reporting, saying the film was based on more than three years of investigative journalism and that the testimony it contained was genuine.
The IDF said it remained willing to examine credible allegations of wrongdoing and acknowledged that mistakes could occur during military operations.
However, it maintained that the documentary failed to accurately represent how its forces operated in Gaza, saying: “The tragic consequences of war do not justify distorting the facts”.