'Slow and meticulous': Israeli soldiers refute ‘NAZA’ film’s claims about AI-powered targeting decisions in Gaza

Days after the documentary “NAZA” won an award and a 25-minute standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival, public debate in Israel continues to be dominated by the horrific, yet unsubstantiated claims made by the movie’s Israeli directors, Yuval Avraham and Rachel Szor.

While politicians spent the past few days competing in their criticism of Avraham and Szor and calling for various punishments, detailed refutations of the film’s claims by Israeli soldiers and international military experts have received comparatively less coverage.

The film itself has not been released in full, and the Israeli military repeatedly stressed that it requested the complete version even before it screened in Venice. Italy, so that it could respond fairly to the accusations.

The movie title “NAZA” is ostensibly based on the Hebrew military acronym for collateral damage, “nezek agavi” and a play on words with “Gaza” – however, I believe the similarities to the term “Nazi” are surely not a coincidence and betray part of the directors’ motivation.

The central argument of the filmmakers, as far as can be gathered, is that the IDF’s calculations of potential collateral damage, including its alleged use of AI programs, and its reported willingness to accept as many as 500 civilian casualties in a single strike demonstrate Israel’s culpability for war crimes and genocide in the Gaza Strip.

This is based on the testimony of 24 soldiers who reportedly serve in the IDF Unit 8200, which is responsible for signal intelligence.

Numerous active reserve soldiers have come out to defend the IDF against the accusations, citing personal experience.

Even Omri Ronen, No. 7 on the list of the far-left "The Democrats" party, several of whose members have defended the movie, said on Tuesday: “It tarnishes me and IDF soldiers. I will not watch this film because I saw the reality in Gaza. The army did not operate like that.”

IDF officials told The Jerusalem Post they believe the film directors are purposefully trying to paint the entire concept of collateral damage as dehumanizing.

This is the circular argument I have encountered repeatedly. The original claim was that "civilian deaths cannot be called collateral damage when they are anticipated and quantified." That is legally false and demonstrates the author’s lack of knowledge of the subject. Expected… https://t.co/J0eCzGMcMy

— John Spencer (@SpencerGuard) September 14, 2026

This is yet another case of a double standard used against Israel, as the concept itself is widely recognized as part of the laws of armed conflict (LOAC).

This tactic could be observed in a recent post on 𝕏 by Bushra Shaikh, a Pakistani-background British anti-Israel activist.

“Israeli military whistleblowers describe a system where the number of civilians expected to be killed in an airstrike could be calculated before the bombs were dropped… You cannot call it ‘collateral damage’ when civilian deaths are anticipated, quantified and accepted as part of the operation. It is a murderous system.”

Responding to Shaikhs’ claims, American expert on urban warfare John Spencer said this is “legally false.”

“Expected incidental civilian harm is exactly what proportionality assessments and collateral damage estimation are designed to evaluate,” Spencer wrote, noting that Shaikh’s follow-up claim that Israel was “killing indiscriminately” is not even supported by the film itself.

“At most, the film advances a narrative that Israel accepted a high level of collateral damage for certain targets. That claim would still have to be evaluated against the anticipated military advantage, the information available at the time, and the feasible precautions taken for each attack… Emotional language does not correct a misunderstanding of the law of armed conflict, warfare, or war.”

IDF officials told the JPost that targeting decisions are being made by highly trained Air Force officials and legal officials rather than AI programs. Throughout the course of the war, the Israeli military postponed and even called off strikes that were already underway when civilians unexpectedly appeared near the target.

Despite this, the IDF acknowledged that civilians are being killed in strikes that are legitimate under the LOAC, while noting that “NAZA” completely ignored Hamas’ use of human shields and the extensive efforts to notify and evacuate civilians from conflict zones in Gaza.

Former hostage Omer Shem Tov told Radio 103FM that the film felt “like a knife in the back.” He recounted how, during his captivity, he witnessed the Air Force dropping leaflets with evacuation instructions, but his captors left him behind while fleeing themselves and only returning after the airstrikes.

Officials explained the complexity of such decisions by citing the highly complex and chaotic operation to rescue Noa Argamani from the Gaza Strip in 2024. In that case, the vehicle carrying Argamani and IDF troops became stuck, prompting airstrikes to prevent them from being killed and enable their evacuation. The strikes also resulted in the deaths of more civilians than initially expected.

🚨 The intelligence officer who saw the truth with his own eyes and can no longer stay silent in the face of the lies told in the film “NAZA” “Collateral Damage.”

English subtitles included. A MUST-WATCH. Watch it, share it, and let the truth be heard. 🔥 pic.twitter.com/9TyGxdTw8U

— daniel hanuka📟 🇮🇱 (@LionsOfZion_ORG) September 15, 2026

IDF major (res.) Yair Miron also refuted the movie’s claims in a detailed social media post. Miron was involved in targeting decisions as part of a classified IDF Intelligence unit responsible for collecting information on the hostages.

He noted that “merely” serving as an officer in Unit 8200, like the soldiers whose testimonies were used in the film, “does not necessarily mean having familiarity with the entire process a target goes through before a strike.”

“Many strikes were prevented, canceled, or halted. This happened because of a cumbersome approval process, legal considerations, and concerns about harming hostages. Personally, I know of dozens of strikes that were prevented because of concerns about harming civilians,” he said.

“In the processes I am familiar with, after a target was identified as legitimate (including by technology), it went through a gauntlet. There were human beings involved along the way. There were checks, approvals, disagreements, and prohibitions. It was a slow and meticulous process. In my view, at times it was overly meticulous,” Miron explained.

“There are no ‘simple’ targeting processes in which AI technology identifies a target that is then struck without further deliberation,” Miron stressed. “The use of technology, of which I am extremely proud, enabled us to do many things during the war and, in fact, repeatedly saved the lives of innocent people.”

The soldiers who were interviewed, Miron concluded, “describe processes that, to my understanding, could not have happened. This of course reinforces the suspicion that this is a film whose bottom line was determined before the first take began – that its creators understood it would succeed around the world primarily because of the agenda it serves.”

Capt. (res) Shahar Varon, who was seriously wounded while fighting in Gaza and is currently a candidate on Naftali Bennett’s “Together” party, argued on social media that Israeli soldiers “were required to fight an enemy that does not play by any rules we know.”

“An enemy that does not always confront you in uniform, that operates from within civilian areas and exploits the mixing of combatants and civilians to make it harder for us to fight them… I know how much effort we made to minimize harm to uninvolved civilians. I was there. I know the price.”

Throughout the war, soldiers and their families have repeatedly criticized the IDF for being too stringent in efforts to prevent civilian deaths, in a way that, in turn, endangered the Israeli troops.

Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Yechiel Leiter, has repeatedly stated that his son, Cpt. Moshe Yedidya Leiter, was killed because his unit entered an area known to be dangerous on foot, rather than bombing it from the air.

“My son was killed because we are careful not to harm innocent people. He might be alive today if we had done what we are being accused of,” Leiter told CNN last year.