‘Distorted, misleading, disingenuous‘: IDF slams ‘NAZA’ film in official response to war crime allegations

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on Thursday published an official, detailed response to the claims by the documentary “NAZA,” which alleged that the Israeli military had systematically carried out war crimes in the Gaza Strip, including the intentional killing of civilians using AI-powered targeting programs.

The documentary by Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor won the Special Jury Prize at the Venice International Film Festival last month.

However, while the film’s serious allegations received widespread media coverage through trailers and excerpts, it wasn’t publicly available and wasn't made accessible to IDF personnel.

In its response, the IDF accused the filmmakers of failing to follow proper journalistic practice by not giving it the chance to respond ahead of 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 breakdown compiled by a [military] representative who attended a public screening, as well as other public accounts,” the IDF said.

The military noted that “the film inverts reality in various ways, beginning with its title,” which is the acronym of the Hebrew term “Nezek Agavi,” meaning collateral damage.

“Paradoxically, the film presents the exceptional effort and detail the IDF devotes to estimating such harm in strikes as evidence of indifference to civilian lives. In reality, assessing expected civilian harm in strikes is a requirement under international law.”

The IDF divided its response into two parts: “the first addresses overarching problems with the film’s content and production; the second addresses key allegations in the film. The list does not cover every false and distorted claim in the film.”

Regarding the first part, the IDF noted that most testimonies came from “anonymous interviewees … described as having served in intelligence roles.”

These unnamed soldiers gave accounts focusing on “limited, initial stages dealing with intelligence, rather than the much broader process of planning and approving strikes,” the IDF explained.

“Many of their claims show insufficient knowledge or understanding of the later stages of the targeting process beyond their assignments. The result is substantial errors and misrepresentations of IDF targeting policy.”

The military also stressed that the filmmakers failed to provide details that would allow claims to be checked. “They cite no military directives, contemporaneous records, or other corroborating evidence. Accounts of alleged strikes identify no specific target, date, place or reported casualties, leaving the claims general and unverifiable.”

Thirdly, “NAZA” completely ignores the context “essential to assessing the IDF’s conduct in the war, including the October 7th Massacre, Hamas’s military embedment within Gaza’s civilian population and the steps the IDF took to protect civilians under those conditions.”

This includes “the grave security threat Hamas posed to Israel,” Hamas’ systematic exploitation of civilians as human shields, and the “substantial personnel and resources” dedicated to civilian protection, including the facilitation of massive amounts of “humanitarian supplies and civilian goods into Gaza” via COGAT.

In the second part of its response, the IDF listed refutations to several key allegations in the film while citing “the relevant factual and legal context.”

For example, the military addressed the claim that “Artificial intelligence autonomously generated tens of thousands of human targets that were attacked.”

AI programs don’t “determine whether an object or a person is designated as a target, nor whether a target is struck,” the IDF explained, noting that targets undergo a process of identification before being approved “by at least one authorized intelligence officer.”

“Data-processing tools are used at a sub-stage of the target identification process, to assist in cross-referencing intelligence databases that intelligence analysts have previously gathered and assessed, in order to focus analysts on information likely to be relevant to their ongoing research.”

“These tools cannot independently identify and select targets to strike in the IDF,” the military emphasized.

In closing, the IDF noted that “tragic consequences of war do not justify distorting the facts. Serious discussion of civilian harm requires a serious account of how decisions were actually made. That is precisely what the film fails to provide.”

“The film seeks to create the impression that the IDF acts in an inhumane manner. In reality, the only way the filmmakers can create that impression is by distorting facts, omitting essential context, ignoring previous IDF publications and explanations, and adding emotional manipulation and scripted effects.”

The IDF’s full English-language response can be read here.