NAZA: What to Know About the Controversial Gaza Documentary

A new documentary by Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor has ignited controversy for its allegations about Israel’s conduct in the defensive war against the Hamas terror group in Gaza. The film, NAZA, claims that artificial intelligence was used to identify targets and that Israeli forces knowingly accepted high numbers of civilian casualties in carrying out strikes targeting Hamas terrorists. The backlash has been fierce, with the IDF strongly rejecting those claims, saying they misrepresent how the military uses technology and makes decisions about targets and strikes, and many in Israel up in arms that two Israeli directors would use their platform to further such a vilifying narrative. 

Here’s what to know about the documentary, Israel’s response, how the IDF says it has conducted military operations in Gaza, and what international law requires. 

Key Takeaways

• NAZA makes serious allegations about Israel’s use of AI and targeting practices in Gaza. The IDF strongly rejects the film’s portrayal, saying humans—not AI—make targeting decisions and that systems such as Lavender assist intelligence analysts rather than independently approving targets. 
• The documentary alleges that Israeli forces approved strikes despite anticipating high civilian casualties. The IDF disputes those claims, saying commanders assess expected civilian harm, take feasible precautions, and can cancel strikes when the risk to civilians is considered too high. It also specifically rejects the film’s allegation that Israel approved a strike in which 500 civilian deaths were anticipated. 
• Civilian casualties, while tragic, do not by themselves establish that a strike was unlawful. International humanitarian law requires attacks against legitimate military objectives to comply with principles including distinction, proportionality, and necessity. Israel says its targeting procedures incorporate these requirements, while Hamas’s use of civilian areas can make protecting civilians more difficult. 
• The documentary has prompted strong reactions in Israel, including calls for scrutiny of both the film’s allegations and the government’s response to its filmmakers. The IDF says it is open to genuine criticism and investigates suspected violations, while Israeli legal experts have called for an objective, independent investigation into the conduct of the war and adherence to the rule of law.

What is NAZA?

NAZA is an 80-minute documentary featuring interviews with 24 anonymous Israeli military and intelligence personnel who say they were involved in operations in Gaza. 

The documentary examines Israel’s use of intelligence and data-processing systems, including Lavender and Habsora, which have helped military analysts identify and assess potential targets. It also reportedly recounts that anticipated civilian casualties were factored into strike decisions and that IDF personnel were permitted to carry them out even in cases where many civilian casualties were expected.

NAZA premiered at the Venice Film Festival, where it received the Special Jury Prize, bringing its allegations significant international and social media attention.

What Does NAZA Mean? 

The film takes its title from a Hebrew military acronym for “collateral damage,” referring to civilian casualties anticipated from an attack on a legitimate military target. The term refers to the potential harm to civilians that military planners assess when considering an attack. 

Where Can I Watch NAZA?

According to the Guardian, which produced the film, NAZA began its international theatrical release in late September and has secured distributors in 56 territories. It had its North American premiere at the New York Film Festival on September 26 and opens in New York on September 30, followed by Los Angeles and other U.S. cities. The film has also been offered to distributors and cinemas in Israel, while The Guardian is exploring ways for it to be seen in the Palestinian territories. It is expected to stream for free on The Guardian’s website in late November.

How Has Israel Responded to NAZA?

The IDF has strongly rejected NAZA’s allegations. After reviewing the documentary in full, the military published a 10-page response calling the film’s portrayal of its targeting procedures “distorted, misleading and disingenuous” and saying it contains “substantial factual errors.”

The IDF says the film misrepresents how Israel identifies targets, evaluates civilian risk, and approves strikes. According to the military:

• Humans—not AI—make targeting decisions. The IDF says “artificial intelligence has never independently selected targets to strike in the IDF.” Authorized intelligence officers identify potential targets, relevant professionals plan strikes, and operational commanders decide whether to carry them out.
• Lavender does not approve targets for attack. The IDF says Lavender “is not a database of targets approved to strike, but a database that assists intelligence analysts.”
• Civilian harm must be considered. The military says its directives prohibit intentionally targeting civilians and require troops to reduce the risk of civilian harm “to the greatest extent feasible.”
• Evacuation warnings do not authorize attacks on civilians who remain. The IDF says its procedures do not permit troops to disregard civilians who remain in an area after an evacuation warning.
• The IDF investigates civilian harm. The military says it reviews the aftermath of strikes, including unintended civilian casualties, and that these reviews have led to investigations of hundreds of incidents and changes based on lessons learned.

The IDF also specifically rejects NAZA’s allegation that Israel approved a strike in which 500 civilian deaths were anticipated. The military says it “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.”

The military argues that the film focuses heavily on the initial intelligence-gathering stage while overlooking the broader targeting process. It says the film does not adequately account for the personnel who assess civilian harm, legal advisers who review proposed strikes, and commanders who ultimately approve or reject attacks.

The IDF also says the film leaves out important context, including the October 7 attack, Hamas’s use of civilian areas for military activity, and Israel’s efforts to reduce civilian harm through measures such as warnings, munition selection, strike planning, and facilitating humanitarian aid.

The military has questioned whether some of the documentary’s anonymous sources had sufficient knowledge to make the claims presented in the film, saying some interviewees were familiar only with limited parts of the targeting process. Director Yuval Abraham disputes this characterization, saying the filmmakers verified their sources and the cases they described.

At the same time, the IDF says it does not deny that mistakes have occurred during the war. It says it is “open to hearing genuine criticism of its conduct” and that suspected violations of military protocol or war crimes are investigated and, when warranted, can lead to disciplinary or criminal action.

The IDF also defended the term NAZA, which refers to anticipated collateral damage. The military says it is a standard term used to describe incidental civilian harm from attacks on military targets and is part of the process commanders use to assess potential harm and take steps to reduce it.

The IDF concluded that the documentary does not accurately portray how targeting decisions are made. “Serious discussion of civilian harm requires a serious account of how decisions were actually made,” the military said. “The film does not provide one.”

IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir has called the film a “blood libel” and a “deliberate distortion of reality.” He ordered the Military Advocate General to examine possible legal action related to the film and directed the military to investigate whether the documentary improperly leaked classified material. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also condemned the documentary as “incitement.”

At the same time, Zamir said the IDF would continue to accept substantive criticism and examine its own conduct, while rejecting what he characterized as false or unfounded allegations. 

Israeli Culture Minister Miki Zohar went even further, stating on X that he would seek to revoke the filmmakers’ Israeli citizenship for treason. This and other statements elicited critical responses within Israeli society, including a renewed call by Israeli legal experts for the government to commission an objective, independent investigation into the conduct of the war and to adhere to the rule of law in its response to the filmmakers.

The documentary has also prompted a strong reaction on Israeli social media, with many Israelis and prominent commentators pushing back against what they view as a misleading portrayal of the IDF and its conduct in Gaza. Posts defending the military have emphasized the challenges of fighting Hamas in densely populated areas, the steps Israel says it takes to minimize civilian harm, and the importance of distinguishing between legitimate scrutiny of military conduct and allegations they believe distort Israel’s actions. The debate has also fueled criticism that the filmmakers rely heavily on anonymous sources and present disputed claims as established facts. 

How Does Israel Say It Conducts Strikes in Gaza?

Israel says its military campaign is directed against Hamas and other terrorist organizations—not Gaza's civilian population.

The IDF says its targeting procedures require:

• Identifying a legitimate military objective.
• Human review of intelligence and target information.
• An assessment of the anticipated military advantage of an attack.
• An assessment of expected civilian harm.
• Taking feasible precautions to reduce civilian harm.
• Determining that expected civilian harm is not excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.

Israeli officials have also emphasized the IDF's efforts to reduce civilian harm, including its decision to call off hundreds of planned operations when the risk to civilians was considered too high.  

Hamas has made the protection of civilians more difficult by embedding military infrastructure in densely populated areas, including weapons and rocket-launching sites in or near homes, schools, mosques, and hospitals, and by building tunnel entrances and command centers beneath civilian facilities. For example, Hamas has used Gaza’s largest hospital, Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, as a terror command center and to hold hostages.  

Hamas has also been accused of urging civilians to ignore Israeli evacuation warnings and, in some cases, preventing them from leaving areas of fighting. These tactics increase the risk to civilians when Israel targets Hamas military infrastructure. 

What Does International Law Require?

International humanitarian law does not prohibit military operations simply because civilians may be harmed.

The laws of armed conflict allow attacks on legitimate military objectives, but require combatants to distinguish between military and civilian targets, take feasible precautions to protect civilians, and ensure that expected civilian harm is not excessive compared with the anticipated military advantage.

Israel says its military follows these principles, including necessity, distinction, and proportionality, while taking extensive precautions to reduce civilian harm:

• Necessity: Israel says its military campaign is part of its right to self-defense following Hamas's October 7 attack, which killed more than 1,200 people and resulted in 251 hostages being taken.
• Distinction: The IDF says it takes steps to verify that targets are legitimate military objectives and distinguish them from civilians. Military lawyers are involved in reviewing strike decisions, and the IDF says it does not treat civilian sites as targets simply because they are located in areas where Hamas operates.
• Proportionality: The IDF says commanders assess expected civilian harm against the anticipated military advantage and may cancel strikes when the expected harm is considered excessive or when civilians remain in the target area.

Civilian deaths during a military operation do not, by themselves, establish that an attack was unlawful. The key question under international humanitarian law is whether a particular attack targeted a legitimate military objective and complied with the requirements of distinction, proportionality, and precaution.

At the same time, Hamas' practice of operating from densely populated civilian areas can make those requirements more difficult to meet and increase the risk of civilian casualties when Israel strikes legitimate military targets.

Does the Use of AI Make an Israeli Strike Illegal?

No, the use of AI or other technology does not by itself determine whether a military operation is lawful. Instead, the main issue is how the technology is used and whether human decision-makers comply with the laws of armed conflict.

The IDF says its technology helps human analysts process intelligence but does not make targeting decisions. Meanwhile, Israeli commanders make the final decision to approve strikes after reviewing the intelligence and considering the needs of the operation, humanitarian risks, and legal factors. 

The Bottom Line

NAZA portrays Israel’s targeting practices as an automated system in which technology and anticipated civilian casualties play a central role in deciding whom to strike. The IDF strongly disputes that characterization, saying it does not reflect how the military conducts targeting or applies the laws of armed conflict. 

Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas, which deliberately embeds its terror infrastructure among Gaza’s civilian population, such as in hospitals, schools, and mosques. Israel says its military operations target Hamas and other legitimate military objectives, while taking precautions to minimize harm to civilians.

The IDF says human personnel, not AI, decide on targets and strikes. Its targeting process includes reviewing intelligence, assessing the anticipated military advantage and potential harm to civilians, and taking feasible precautions to reduce civilian casualties.

Civilian casualties, while tragic, do not by themselves mean that international law has been violated. The laws of armed conflict allow attacks against legitimate military targets, provided that the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution are followed.

The focus should be on the circumstances of individual strikes and whether they complied with international law, not simply on the fact that civilians were killed or that Israel used advanced technology such as AI during its military operations. 

At the same time, Israel’s commitment to democratic values and the rule of law should guide any official response to potential violations, whether by government forces or by purported whistleblowers. The challenge of protecting national security in the face of extraordinary threats from Gaza while ensuring transparency and accountability and upholding individual rights, including the right to criticize the conduct of the government during wartime, even unfairly or inaccurately, is one that Israeli society will continue to confront.