NAZA filmmakers say they spoke to more than 100 sources about Israeli actions in Gaza | NAZA

The team behind the award-winning film NAZA, which details the Israeli military’s targeting policies in Gaza and its alleged acceptance of high civilian death tolls, revealed they spoke to more than 100 sources with knowledge of military systems used in the war.

The disclosure follows a statement from the Israeli military seeking to discredit the documentary.

In its response, which the IDF said was based on statements made by the filmmakers and a review by a representative who attended a screening, the IDF claimed there were “substantial errors” in the film and that it had relied on interviews with two dozen intelligence and other soldiers who had only a partial picture of the target approval process.

At the center of the IDF’s rebuttal is the oft-repeated assertion that its rules of engagement explicitly distinguish between militants and civilians and prohibit deliberately targeting civilians, while requiring commanders to take steps to minimize harm to civilians, assertions that have long been disputed over the years by critics.

While acknowledging that it used AI to recommend potential targets in Gaza, the Israeli military also said that final decisions made regarding strikes and the risk of civilian casualties were approved by officers.

The Israeli military also denied approving, planning or carrying out an attack with 500 civilian casualties in pursuit of a single Hamas target.

The IDF statement follows earlier efforts by Israeli politicians to dismiss NAZA – a military acronym used euphemistically by Israeli intelligence to indicate the number of civilians expected to be killed in an airstrike – which accompanied death threats against the film’s directors, Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, and calls from the country’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, for them to be stripped of their Israeli citizenship.

It also echoes earlier complaints from some Israeli critics – including journalists – that the film’s military sources were anonymized, despite the fact that protecting sources in media investigations is common and seen by much of the media as an ethical requirement.

“The NAZA film presents a distorted, misleading and unrealistic picture of the IDF’s target planning and strike processes. The film’s narrative is based on fundamental factual errors stemming from a biased and manipulative portrayal,” the statement added.

In response to the IDF’s statement, the Guardian, which produced the film, disclosed more details about how the team verified the claims, which involved numerous interviews with people familiar with the IDF’s targeting and authorization processes.

A spokesperson said: “The IDF’s attempt to present the 24 participants at NAZA as junior officers involved only in the early stages of the targeting process are wrong.

“These include officers and soldiers who were involved in several stages of the targeting process in Gaza, including intelligence, operations and the final authorization process.

“The process of assessing the credibility of the testimony was rigorous. It included leaks of classified documents, detailed verification of specific keystrokes, and corroboration via a broader pool of confidential journalistic sources who did not appear on camera in the film.

“Over the past three years, together we have interviewed more than 100 sources familiar with IDF systems used in the Gaza war, including high-ranking commanders directly involved in authorizing the strikes.

“The Guardian fully supports the film, which builds on three years of detailed reporting from the Guardian and our partners. Several highly respected news organizations have subsequently confirmed the IDF’s use of AI-based systems in the Gaza offensive and the relaxation of safeguards to protect civilians, including the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press.”

While Netanyahu has claimed that Israeli military safeguards have led to one of the lowest civilian-combatant ratios in modern warfare, this assertion has been disputed by the IDF’s own casualty assessments, by the UN 2024 Commission of Inquiry, and by research by NGOs including Action on Armed Violence.

—