When a documentary becomes the center of international controversy, its makers must have done something right: They have highlighted a topic they care about, brought it to the attention of as many people as possible — preferably those with influence in society — and made it the subject of conversation in as many quarters as possible.
Even before discussing the merits of the new Israeli documentary “NAZA” — a Hebrew military acronym for nezek agavi, meaning “collateral damage” — which investigates the use of AI-powered targeting by the Israeli military, it has to be underlined that, of the more than 75,000 people who have been killed in Gaza over the past three years, the vast majority have been civilians. According to one estimate, more than half have been women, children, and elderly people. This is a shocking figure by any human standard.
The controversy surrounding the documentary, made by two Israeli Oscar winners, Rachel Szor and Yuval Abraham, was triggered by the decision of the jury of the Venice Film Festival to award them a special prize, followed by a 25-minute standing ovation from the audience. However, most of those who had expressed their views about the film and what should be done to its directors had not watched it before passing judgment.
Israel’s Culture Minister Miki Zohar, a member of the ruling Likud party, has called for the two filmmakers to be stripped of their citizenship. Israeli army’s Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir immediately instructed the military’s top legal official to examine possible legal action against those involved in the film, including identifying those who provided the evidence, whose identities were concealed. He said the documentary defamed the military and separately ordered an investigation into the leaking of classified material used in its production. Some were quick to label the film a “blood libel,” not to mention the much worse reactions on social media and suggestions about what should be done to Szor and Abraham.
The arguments of those who are so upset with the film and its content range from rejecting its allegations to claiming that it causes public relations damage to Israel. To the latter argument, the answer is that Israel does not have a PR problem but a reality problem, one that has become increasingly difficult to justify.
The attack on the directors of ‘NAZA’ is a case of vilifying the messenger instead of addressing the message.
Yossi Mekelberg
This documentary, like much of the criticism of the way Israel has conducted the war in Gaza, and to a similar extent in Lebanon, is not about whether Israel had the right to respond to the atrocities committed by Hamas on Oct. 7, or to Hezbollah initiating the conflict in the north of the country. It is about the hugely disproportionate response to those attacks.
“Collateral damage,” one of the most disturbing euphemisms in relation to wars and conflicts, can never make the killing of noncombatants right. It is the killing of innocent people of all ages who happen to become victims of circumstances, which can never be right.
As for the argument that the allegations are false and aimed at smearing the country’s reputation, the Israeli military and the government, if they want to be believed, need to release information that refutes what the film alleges. No one, considering the level of killing and devastation in Gaza, would or should simply take Israeli officials’ versions at face value.
Considering some of the statements made by senior Cabinet members over the past three years, it is only to be expected that there is a perception among many in the international community that the entire population of Gaza has been treated as collateral in Israel’s determination to destroy Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Statements by senior Israeli officials suggesting that there were no innocent people in Gaza, calls to displace Palestinians outside the Gaza Strip, and demands from parts of the Israeli right for revenge against the entire population were not isolated incidents. Hence, the suspicion that this approach filtered into the manner in which the Israeli military conducted the war in Gaza is not at all far-fetched.
Like all documentary films, “NAZA“ does not pretend to show the entire picture. It highlights specific aspects and often, as in this case, specific wrongs. Israel could have saved itself much of the international criticism it has drawn had it agreed to establish an independent commission of inquiry and make all the evidence available. A government that refuses to do so is bound to raise suspicions that it has something, or much, to hide.
The hysteria and panic that followed the decision to award the documentary a prize at a film festival only magnifies those suspicions. Persecuting, and possibly prosecuting, those who made the documentary and those who contributed evidence to it — something that is rather brave considering what they might face if their identities were to be revealed — is not going to make the issue disappear. It will only increase scrutiny of the conduct of the Israeli military and other Israeli security forces in the occupied Palestinian territories and beyond.
Furthermore, no serious person would claim that the Israeli army, like other militaries, does not at times treat civilians as collateral damage in pursuit of military objectives. That does not make it right in the slightest. The question is how extensively this practice has been used, and whether reliance on AI-powered systems might make an already bad situation even worse.
The attack on the film’s directors is a case of vilifying the messenger instead of addressing the message, which can be done only through an independent inquiry. The reaction to the movie is also a further illustration of the constant deterioration of public discourse: defensive and toxic to an extreme, rather than thoughtful and reflective.
Such an approach could only double down on the government’s desire to continue a permanent security emergency through constant wars, leaving no time for reflection on what is permissible and what is not in the conduct of war, or on how a democracy should deal with inconvenient criticism, whether from the media, civil society, the world of art, or opposition politicians.
I have no doubt that Szor and Abraham made this film, as they did with “No Other Land,” with the best of intentions. They did not set out to harm Israel. Rather, they appear to believe that exposing the truth is a fire burning in their bones, not only because of the injustice inflicted on Palestinians, but also because of what that injustice is doing to Israeli society.
For those who grew up with the ethos, which is increasingly being exposed as a myth, of the “purity of arms” and the “most moral army in the world,” the bare reality is too painful not to expose, and has become a necessity. The ball is now in the court of the rest of Israel’s government and society: They must either present alternative, but reliable, evidence, or, if there is none, to reflect and repent.
As the saying goes: Three things cannot be long hidden — the sun, the moon, and the truth.