NAZA Film Storm: Israel's Democracy Under Fire or Free Speech at Work?
The uproar in Israel over the documentary film NAZA, formally presented by Britain but written and directed by Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, demands a clear-headed look. The film, which won the Special Jury Prize at the 83rd Venice International Film Festival, has ignited a fierce debate about national security, military ethics, and the very nature of Israeli democracy.
What is the NAZA film about?
The documentary is built on recorded testimonies from 24 anonymous former Israeli soldiers, officers, and intelligence personnel. It focuses on what the military calls collateral damage, known in Hebrew as nezek agavi, which forms the acronym NAZA. The film examines how decisions on acceptable civilian casualties are made, whether by human judgment, automatic surveillance, or AI-operated systems.
Why is the film causing such a controversy in Israel?
The international attention stems from the staggering numbers. Since the Hamas-led massacre and abduction of Israelis from Gaza border communities on October 7, 2023, over 70,000 Palestinians have been killed in the subsequent war. At least two-thirds of these fatalities are believed to be civilians, a figure that has fueled global criticism of Israel's military operations.
I say believed because there are large sections of Israeli society that reject the notion of uninvolved Palestinians in Gaza. Just as not all Israelis can be blamed for every government action, the Palestinians are not all responsible for the crimes of Hamas. This is a truth that must be stated clearly, even when it is unpopular.
Is criticizing the IDF a crime in Israel?
Holding critical positions about the government and the IDF is not a crime. It is evidence of the free speech that defines our democracy. Yet the reaction from the top has been swift and severe. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proposed a bill to revoke citizenship for defaming IDF personnel and another to increase defamation fines twenty-fold. Culture and Sports Minister Miki Zohar demanded an urgent Shin Bet investigation into the sources of the film's information.
This onslaught deserves the Hebrew term aleihum: frequently unjustified, harsh criticism, and slander. The filmmakers have the right to their views, and the state has the right to protect its security. But the proportionality of the response is deeply troubling.
What are the legal risks for the filmmakers and their sources?
The 24 anonymous interviewees face the most serious consequences. They divulged information obtained during military service, and if their identities are uncovered, they could face charges of treason. While their motivation may be to stop what they believe is a breach of international law, the damage to the state could be irreversible, especially when viewers are not neutral bystanders but often hostile actors.
One argument from Abraham is worth noting. He told Channel 13's Raviv Drucker that NAZA might have been unnecessary had Israel's free media properly investigated collateral damage early in the war. Drucker, a respected investigative journalist, admitted he was right. The question remains whether deeper media scrutiny would have changed anything. So far, coverage of Jewish violence in Judea and Samaria has not stopped the problem, despite condemnations from Netanyahu and Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir.
What does this mean for Israel's democracy and security?
Israel is a nation that has always wrestled with the tension between security and liberty. As the prophet Amos declared, Let justice roll down like waters. We must defend our soldiers and our state, but we must also allow the difficult questions to be asked. The NAZA controversy is not a catastrophe for hasbara; it is a test of our resilience and our commitment to the values that make us strong.
The writer has published extensively on international relations, Zionism, and Israeli politics, and worked at the Knesset Library and Research Center from 1994 to 2010.