The truth is collateral damage in NAZA

By Rolene Marks

In the last two weeks, two Israeli-made shows have dominated the headlines. One is the massive hit, Fauda, which in its latest season that is centered on the horrors of 7 October, is laying bare the atrocities and trauma in as much excruciating pain that art imitating life allows. The show’s creators take viewers as close to that day that the boundaries of television permit. 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. At the time of writing this, Fauda was ranked 4 overall in global rankings. It already debuted at number 1 in Lebanon and is in the top 10 of Arab countries.

The other is the 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 premise of the movie that is ironically backed by the notoriously anti-Israel publication, The Guardian, relies on anonymous testimony from 24 IDF soldiers who claim to have served in the elite intelligence unit, 8200, and claims that using AI (artificial intelligence) a planned strike that would result in 500 civilian deaths was approved.

Israel’s war with Hamas is the most scrutinized conflict in the world, and if there ever was an incident where 500 civilians were killed, it would definitely have dominated the front pages of every media outlet. The only strike where the number 500 was mentioned was on the 17 October 2023 when Hamas alleged that an Israeli airstrike had struck the Al-Ahli hospital, killing that many civilians. Faster than Hamas were miraculously able to count alleged civilian deaths, was the speed in which this made headlines around the world. When the facts were investigated, it was discovered that a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket that had fallen short, hit the parking lot causing a small crater and sadly killed a handful of civilians. 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 analogy can be drawn with NAZA. The documentary has been screened and the headlines about its content have dominated media publications around the world, despite it not being thoroughly vetted for factual accuracy and everything that one hopes a subject matter of this importance should be subjected to.

The IDF have reacted very strongly to what has been shared. They have refuted the veracity of claims that the army use AI to determine targets and that a strike was carried out that killed 500. They also demanded a widespread, robust campaign that must include the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and National Public Diplomacy Directorate.

In a statement released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, they 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 October 7, driven by the Red-Green coalition of the radical left and Islamist movements.” The Ministry took aim at the lack of verification, saying in their statement, “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 judgment. 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 judgment 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. Methods include roof knocking, dropping pamphlets announcing impending strikes, SMS’s, phone-calls in Arabic and other methods that have been lauded by other army officials.

Former hostage, Omer Shem Tov, in an op-ed written for the Wall Street Journal said:

 “One of my captors told me his mother had received a phone call warning her to leave her home because an Israeli strike might put her in danger. The call came from the Israel Defense Forces. Hamas knew where I was and left me to die. Israel didn’t know my location, but it knew where my captor’s mother was and called to make sure she wasn’t killed accidentally. There I was—kidnapped, starved and tortured by her son—while my army was trying to keep his mother alive.”

His op-ed continued:

 “Israel desperately wanted me home. But not at any price. There were Palestinian civilians between Israel and me. So Israel dropped leaflets, sent messages, made phone calls and ordered evacuations. It tried to minimize NAZA, or collateral damage.

I also saw what death meant to the other side. One day, my captors celebrated after Hamas fighters killed Israeli soldiers. The next day, Israel bombed the area where I was being held. The explosions came about 10 seconds apart. I was terrified. The terrorist beside me was delighted. To him, every explosion was proof of success: Look what we made Israel do. Look how much we hurt them. I understood something then. For Hamas, destruction itself could be victory. As long as there was death on either side, Hamas could win.”

Shem Tov is not the only former hostage who has lambasted the filmmakers. Eliyah Cohen took to his Instagram page and wrote, “”I understand that there is the law and we live in a free and democratic country and everyone deserves to say what they want, but we as a nation, not as a state, as a nation, cannot allow this to pass by unanswered,” he said. “We need to take to the streets, hang posters of them, and spread pictures of them through every medium so that when they walk on the street, they’re allowed to walk here, we won’t do anything that’s against the law, but when they walk on the street they will feel ashamed.”

Cohen also mentioned the soldiers who fought to free him from captivity: “In this country they (Avraham and Szor) cannot go and humiliate my brethren and my friends and the people who fought every day to bring me home and who fight every day so our families could live here, and they’ll go and spread lies… and what will we do? We’ll let it go?”

Liri Albag, who was one of the female observer soldiers taken captive from Nahal Oz base, published a scathing response, “Hey… Do you know that although you only served for two weeks in the IDF and were discharged because of your political views, if you had fallen into Hamas captivity, they would have considered you a soldier anyway? And they would have tortured you for being a soldier. Don’t ask me how I know.

“Do you understand that if you had been in the Gaza border area on October 7, none of the terrorists would have stopped and said, ‘Hey, leave him alone—he’s okay; don’t hurt him’? Or perhaps you would simply have joined the ‘struggle to liberate Palestine’ and harmed your own people? “At first, I wanted to write ‘blood of my blood,’ but then I remembered that we most certainly do not share the same blood—and fortunately so! Ugh, disgusting. You sold out your own people for people who yearn for your death, and that is unforgivable. How do people like this have citizenship here?! They should be launched out of our country on a missile.”

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. He said his testimony was manipulated, and sources were financially incentivized to provide higher civilian-casualty figures. “I participated in this film, unfortunately, and they manipulated me so much,” he says. He continues, ““Numbers of 400 and 500 collateral damage don’t exist.” He claims participants were financially incentivized. Most significantly, he alleges that interviewees were financially incentivized to give increasingly higher figures, “They offer you ten shekels for every additional person you say: say 400, get 4,000; say 500, get 5,000.” He claims this caused participants to exaggerate: “People start exaggerating. They see the money and cash in front of their eyes.”

Why?  Why did these two Israelis who claim to call Israel home, produce such a damaging movie, aided by a publication that is notorious for its anti-Israel bias? Plaudits from peers? In this instance, a 25 minute ovation at the Venice Film Festival, ironically the same festival who gave the same accolades to Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler’s favoured celluloid propagandist. They claim it is concern for Palestinian casualty recognition.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a different opinion. The Ministry says, “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, distort facts seeking political goals and personal gains. The “film’s co-director, Yuval Abraham, is no neutral investigative journalist – he is a longtime radical anti-Israeli activist committed to demonizing and delegitimizing Israel.

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

The filmmakers lack that ability of a truly perspicacious reporter and examine what their motives are. When questioned by a reporter 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 tundra.

Perhaps they need to binge watch season 5 of Fauda.

About the writer:

Rolene Marks is a journalist and commentator on Middle East affairs, co-founder of Lay of the Land and the National Spokesperson for the South African Zionist Federation.

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves.  LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).