In the long and difficult reckoning with the costs of modern warfare, a documentary called NAZA has become a flashpoint between institutional denial and investigative accountability. The filmmakers, backed by The Guardian, have disclosed a network of more than 100 sources who informed their examination of how the Israeli military weighed civilian lives against military objectives in Gaza — a practice the film names with the military's own acronym. The IDF disputes the film's portrait of its targeting culture, yet independent reporting by major international outlets has corroborated its central
NAZA filmmakers cite 100+ sources in defense against IDF discrediting effort
The documentary alleges the Israeli military accepted high numbers of civilian deaths in Gaza targeting decisions, with the IDF denying approval of strikes anticipating 500 civilian casualties.
Officers and soldiers involved in multiple stages of the targeting process
Mark
So the filmmakers say they talked to over 100 people. But the IDF says only 24 appear in the film, and those 24 were junior officers. How do we know the other 80-plus actually exist or that they said what the filmmakers claim?
Mimi
The Guardian's statement says those 100 sources were interviewed over three years, but only 24 went on camera. The others were part of the verification process—they helped corroborate what the on-camera sources said. They also had access to leaked classified documents and analyzed specific strikes to check the accounts.
Luke
But here's the thing: we're taking the Guardian's word for it that this verification happened. We don't see the documents. We don't know who these 100 people are. The IDF is saying the on-camera sources had incomplete knowledge, and the Guardian is saying the off-camera sources filled in the gaps. We can't independently verify either claim.
Mark
The New York Times, Washington Post, and AP all confirmed parts of the story though, right? That's independent verification.
Mimi
Yes—they confirmed that the IDF used AI-driven targeting systems and that civilian protection safeguards were loosened. Those are the core technical claims in the film. That's significant corroboration.
Luke
It is. But those outlets confirmed those specific points. They didn't necessarily verify the film's central claim—that the military accepted 500 civilian deaths for a single target. That's the most explosive allegation, and I don't see that independently confirmed.
Mark
The IDF denied it happened. Doesn't that count as a response?
Luke
A denial is a response, but it's not verification. The IDF has an obvious interest in denying it. What we'd need is independent confirmation from another credible source. We don't have that yet.
Mimi
The UN commission of inquiry and Action on Armed Violence both found evidence of loosened safeguards and high civilian casualties. That lends weight to the film's broader argument about how the military operated.
Mark
So the film's credibility rests partly on the 100 sources and partly on what other organizations have independently found. The IDF's rebuttal is essentially saying the on-camera sources were too junior to know the full picture. But the filmmakers say those 24 included people at multiple levels, including final authorization.
Luke
And that's where we are. Two competing claims about who the sources were and what they knew. The Guardian has more detail, but we still can't see the evidence ourselves.
O Pulso
- The IDF moved swiftly to discredit NAZA after a screening, calling its sourcing narrow and its conclusions distorted — but the filmmakers responded by revealing an investigation three years in the making, drawing on over 100 sources across the targeting chain.
- At the core of the dispute is a single, charged allegation: that the Israeli military operated under a framework that accepted mass civilian casualties as a calculable cost, a claim the IDF flatly denies.
- The directors themselves have become targets — facing death threats and a call from Prime Minister Netanyahu to revoke their citizenship, raising urgent questions about the space available for critical journalism inside Israel.
- The Guardian's verification process extended well beyond on-camera interviews, encompassing leaked classified documents, strike-by-strike analysis, and a confidential source network — details offered to counter the IDF's claim of methodological weakness.
- The New York Times, Washington Post, and Associated Press have each independently confirmed that AI targeting systems were deployed in Gaza and that civilian protection safeguards were loosened, lending the documentary's core claims a credibility that transcends any single outlet's reporting.
In the long and difficult reckoning with the costs of modern warfare, a documentary called NAZA has become a flashpoint between institutional denial and investigative accountability. The filmmakers, backed by The Guardian, have disclosed a network of more than 100 sources who informed their examination of how the Israeli military weighed civilian lives against military objectives in Gaza — a practice the film names with the military's own acronym. The IDF disputes the film's portrait of its targeting culture, yet independent reporting by major international outlets has corroborated its central findings, placing this dispute within a wider, unresolved question about what rules govern the taking of civilian life in wartime.
The filmmakers behind NAZA, an award-winning documentary examining Israeli military targeting in Gaza, have responded forcefully to an official IDF statement accusing them of fundamental factual errors. Their rebuttal centered on a significant disclosure: more than 100 sources with direct knowledge of the military systems used during the war had informed their investigation over three years.
The IDF's critique focused on the 24 individuals who appeared on camera, characterizing them as junior officers with only partial visibility into the target approval process. The military restated its position that rules of engagement prohibit deliberately targeting civilians, that human officers — not algorithms — authorize strikes, and that it never approved an attack anticipating 500 civilian deaths to eliminate a single Hamas target. The term NAZA, which gives the film its name, is an Israeli intelligence acronym for the anticipated civilian casualty count in a given airstrike.
The Guardian pushed back with methodological detail: the on-camera sources spanned multiple stages of the targeting chain, from intelligence gathering to final authorization, and the broader investigation included leaked classified documents, analysis of specific strikes, and a confidential network that never appeared on screen.
The controversy has reached beyond the film itself. Directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor have received death threats, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has called for their Israeli citizenship to be revoked — a response that has alarmed press freedom advocates, even as some Israeli journalists have questioned the use of anonymous sources.
What complicates the IDF's dismissal is the weight of independent corroboration. The New York Times, Washington Post, and Associated Press have each separately confirmed that AI-driven targeting systems were used in Gaza and that civilian protection safeguards were relaxed during the campaign. Netanyahu's claim that Israeli operations produced one of the lowest civilian-to-combatant ratios in modern warfare has been challenged by the IDF's own leaked assessments, a 2024 UN commission report, and research by armed violence monitoring organizations. NAZA, then, is less an isolated controversy than a focal point in a much larger, still-unresolved accounting of what the war in Gaza cost in civilian lives.
The filmmakers behind NAZA, an award-winning documentary about Israeli military targeting practices in Gaza, have pushed back against an official Israeli Defense Forces statement that accused them of fundamental factual errors. In their response, the team revealed they had conducted interviews with more than 100 sources who possessed direct knowledge of the military systems deployed during the war—a disclosure meant to establish the depth and rigor of their investigation.
The IDF's rebuttal, released after representatives attended a screening and reviewed the filmmakers' statements, claimed the documentary relied too heavily on a narrow group of sources. The military specifically argued that the 24 individuals interviewed on camera were junior-ranking officers who had only partial visibility into the target approval process. The IDF maintained its longstanding position: that its rules of engagement explicitly prohibit deliberately targeting civilians, that commanders are required to minimize civilian harm, and that final strike decisions are approved by senior officers rather than determined by algorithm alone.
At the heart of the dispute is the film's central allegation—that the Israeli military operates under a system that accepts high numbers of civilian deaths in pursuit of military objectives. The acronym NAZA itself, used by Israeli intelligence, refers to the anticipated number of civilian casualties in a given airstrike. The IDF denied that it had ever approved, planned, or executed an attack expecting 500 civilian deaths to eliminate a single Hamas target. The military also acknowledged using artificial intelligence to help identify potential targets but insisted that human officers made the final decisions on whether to strike and assessed the risk to civilians before authorization.
The Guardian, which produced the film, responded with specifics about how the investigation was conducted. A spokesperson detailed that the 24 on-camera sources included officers and soldiers positioned at multiple stages of the targeting chain—intelligence gathering, operations planning, and final authorization. The verification process, the statement explained, went far beyond these interviews. The team had examined leaked classified documents, conducted detailed analysis of specific strikes, and cross-checked accounts with a broader network of confidential sources who did not appear in the film. Over three years, the investigation had accumulated conversations with more than 100 people with expertise in IDF systems used in Gaza.
The controversy has extended beyond the documentary itself. Directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor have faced death threats and calls from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for them to be stripped of Israeli citizenship. Israeli critics, including some journalists, have objected to the use of anonymized sources, though source protection is standard practice in investigative journalism and widely regarded as an ethical necessity.
The IDF's characterization of the film as presenting a "distorted, misleading, and unrealistic picture" stands in tension with independent reporting by major international news organizations. The New York Times, Washington Post, and Associated Press have each separately confirmed key elements of the documentary's reporting—specifically, that the Israeli military deployed AI-driven targeting systems in Gaza and that safeguards designed to protect civilians were loosened during the campaign. These corroborations suggest the film's core claims have withstood scrutiny beyond the Guardian's own investigation.
Netanyahu has previously claimed that Israeli military safeguards have produced one of the lowest civilian-to-combatant casualty ratios in modern warfare. That assertion has been challenged by multiple sources: the IDF's own leaked casualty assessments, a UN commission of inquiry report from 2024, and research by organizations including Action on Armed Violence. The documentary, then, sits within a broader landscape of contested claims about how the military conducted its operations and what those operations cost in civilian lives.
Citações Notáveis
The IDF's attempt to portray the 24 participants in NAZA as junior-ranking officers involved only in the early stages of the targeting process is false. They include officers and soldiers who were involved in multiple stages of the targeting process in Gaza, including intelligence, operations and the final authorisation process.— Guardian spokesperson responding to IDF statement
The film NAZA presents a distorted, misleading, and unrealistic picture of the IDF's target planning and strike processes.— Israel Defense Forces statement
Quer a matéria completa?
Leia o original em The Guardian ↗
War & Conflict