NAZA’s real collateral damage is the truth

In the past few weeks, two Israeli-made shows have dominated the headlines. One is Fauda, which in its latest season is laying bare the atrocities and trauma of 7 October in as much excruciating pain as art imitating life allows. 

Fauda has managed to succeed where Israel’s public diplomacy has failed – and the results are evident as it soars to the top of the Netflix rankings, especially in the Arab world. 

The other production is the documentary movie NAZA. The title is an Israeli military acronym derived from nezek agavi, Hebrew for “collateral damage”, but most people will reach for another analogy. You know the one. 

The movie, which is backed by the notoriously anti-Israel British publication The Guardian, relies on anonymous testimony from 24 Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers who claim to have served in the elite intelligence unit 8200. It claims that a planned strike that would result in 500 civilian deaths was approved. 

Israel’s war with Hamas is the most scrutinised conflict in the world, and if there ever was an incident where 500 civilians were killed, it would have dominated the front pages of most media outlets. The only strike in which the number 500 was mentioned was on 17 October 2023 when Hamas alleged that an Israeli airstrike had struck the Al-Ahli hospital, killing that many civilians. Faster than Hamas was miraculously able to count alleged civilian deaths, was the speed with which this made headlines around the world. When the facts were investigated, it was discovered that a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket had fallen short and hit the parking lot, causing a small crater and sadly killing a handful of civilians. But the lie had gotten out, put its trousers on, and was gallivanting around the world – and the result was mass protests and attacks on several synagogues. 

A similar thing is happening with NAZA. The headlines about its content have dominated media around the world, despite it not being interrogated for factual accuracy and everything else one hopes a subject matter of this importance should be subjected to. 

The IDF has reacted strongly to what’s been shared. It has refuted the claims that the army uses artificial intelligence to determine targets and that a strike killed 500 people. 

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has called NAZA “pure propaganda, created by radicals who serve the narrative of murderous terrorists. It is yet another element of the anti-Israel campaign that began after 7 October, driven by the Red-Green coalition of the radical left and Islamist movements.” 

The ministry took aim at the lack of verification, saying, “the ‘film’ claims that the IDF approved a planned strike despite anticipating 500 civilian deaths. This is false. It never happened. Never. The IDF would never approve such an operational plan. But there is a reason – and a method – behind the dissemination of such an outrageous allegation. The method employed throughout this campaign, including in this ‘film’, is familiar: introduce a shocking falsehood, amplify it around the world, and allow it to shape headlines and public opinion. By the time the facts emerge and corrections follow, the damage to Israel’s image has already been done. Again and again, false accusations against Israel receive immediate global attention, while their subsequent collapse receives only a fraction of the exposure and impact. This film follows precisely the same pattern. 

“The same applies to another false accusation, that the IDF allows AI systems to make operational decisions independently of human judgement. This is simply false and fundamentally misrepresents how the IDF operates. Operational decisions are made within a defined human chain of command and are subject to human judgement and oversight. The IDF has developed extensive procedures intended to prevent and mitigate harm to non-combatants.” 

Methods of warning to mitigate civilian casualties are conspicuously ignored in NAZA. Methods include roof knocking, dropping pamphlets announcing impending strikes, SMSs, phone calls in Arabic, and other methods that have been lauded by other army officials. 

A soldier who claimed to have participated in the movie spoke to Walla, one of Israelis biggest news publications, and made serious allegations about how his testimony and casualty figures were obtained. 

“I participated in this film, unfortunately, and they manipulated me so much,” he said. “Numbers of 400 and 500 collateral damage don’t exist.” He claims that interviewees were financially incentivised to give increasingly higher figures. “They offer you 10 shekels for every additional person you say: say 400, get 4 000; say 500, get 5 000. People start exaggerating. They see the money and cash in front of their eyes.” 

The big question is why? Why did these two Israelis who claim to call Israel home, produce such a damaging movie? Plaudits from peers? In this instance, a 25-minute ovation at the Venice Film Festival, the same festival that gave similar accolades to Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler’s favoured celluloid propagandist. 

The filmmakers claim it is concern for Palestinian casualty recognition. 

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a different opinion. “The truth is the opposite of what the ‘film’ seeks to portray. And yes, in Israel’s democracy, where freedom of expression is cherished, there are also radical Israelis who lie [and] distort facts, seeking political goals and personal gains. The film’s co-director, Yuval Abraham, is no neutral investigative journalist – he is a long-time radical anti-Israeli activist committed to demonising and delegitimising Israel. 

“As part of this method, the film’s creators deliberately omit Hamas from their narrative, erasing the terrorist organisation whose actions are at the heart of this war. Hamas deliberately targets Israeli civilians, as it did on 7 October, while embedding itself within Gaza’s civilian population and using civilians as human shields. Israel is fighting this bloodthirsty terrorist organisation while the IDF operates in accordance with international law and takes extensive measures to minimise civilian harm.” 

The filmmakers lack the ability of a truly perspicacious reporter to examine their own motives. When questioned on Israel’s Channel 12, Abraham simply could not verify any of the accusations, and when pushed about omitting the atrocities of 7 October and Hamas’s role in the war, he testily responded with “go make your own movie”. 

Israeli officials are debating what punitive measures they can take against the pair. The film has successfully united Israelis in anger. I would wager the hopes of the filmmakers to have their movie screened here would be met with a national temperature colder than the Arctic. 

Perhaps they need to binge watch season 5 of Fauda. 

• Rolene Marks is a journalist and commentator on Middle East affairs, co-founder of Lay of the Land, and national spokesperson for the SAZF.