“Naza,” the documentary by Israelis Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, is one of those films that many people have an opinion about, yet very few have actually seen. I finally managed to watch it, and now I can share my thoughts. It is undoubtedly a courageous film within the Israeli context—one that does not shy away from sparking controversy. It aims to raise questions, though I do not believe they are directed where they ought to be. Instead, I find the film suffers from significant issues regarding credibility, journalistic ethics, the timing and method of its release, and—above all—a lack of depth in analyzing and presenting the context of the events depicted.
Of the roughly 80-minute runtime, only two or three minutes at the beginning mention the events that triggered the war in Gaza. The massacre planned and carried out by Hamas terrorists—including the murders, rapes, torture, and the abduction of hostages from the Israeli civilian population—are briefly noted only to be completely forgotten thereafter. The word “terrorist” is, I believe, never mentioned at all. What follows is a series of interviews with 24 unidentified individuals claiming to be military or specialists working with the Israeli military, yet their ranks or roles are never stated. These interviews—artistically filmed on rooftops in downtown Tel Aviv—reportedly took place between 2023 and 2025. Only a single scene shows a few seconds of an air-raid siren, representing just one instance among the thousands of rocket attacks launched by Hamas and its allies during this period. There is only a single passing mention of the fact that hundreds of civilian hostages abducted by Hamas remained held in the terrorists’ underground tunels. A few sequences show scattered clips from speeches by Netanyahu or excerpts from Israeli Channel 12 news (apparently the filmmakers’ preferred news outlet), yet no commentator—masked or otherwise—is called upon to explain the objectives of the Israeli army’s actions. The right of reply does not seem to be part of the filmmakers’ journalistic toolkit.
The testimonies given by the masked, anonymous interviewees fall into three categories: the calculation of collateral damage based on AI-driven algorithms (the very existence of such decision-making criteria would actually serve as an argument against accusations of genocide); firing upon civilians who strayed from designated corridors while trying to access food aid (a claim that struck me as highly implausible, given that it was the terrorists themselves who employed such tactics); and propaganda methods used to discredit individuals who provided information to foreign organizations (a very vague claim that appears only towards the end). Almost none of the accusations leveled in the film struck me as credible. The intelligence experts featured in the film use simplistic language, and if they are indeed real individuals, their level of responsibility was likely minimal. It is unclear what motivates them to speak with a journalist for a film funded by a foreign newspaper, as none of those interviewed—perhaps with a single exception—seem to harbor doubts or act out of ideological conviction. And if, as soldiers, they received orders contrary to the army’s ethical standards, why did they not approach their superiors or the Israeli press?
I hope the film is screened in Israel as well, allowing Israeli viewers to form their own opinions. I do not wish to join the chorus of condemnation directed at the filmmakers. I believe that criticism is welcome when well-founded and substantiated—even in wartime, and while respecting the protocols that ensure the safety of combatants—yet, frankly, I do not understand their intentions. For whom did they make this film? If it is intended for an Israeli audience, why wasn’t it released in Israel first? There are at least four television channels, along with numerous online outlets, that publish reports critical of government policy and military effectiveness. Why premiere in Venice and the global stage first—was it merely for awards and that twenty-four-minute standing ovation? The failure to grant a right of reply strikes me as a serious issue. The film includes no alternative viewpoint, nor any reaction from the army regarding the events depicted. Were responses requested but not received? However, the most significant objection, in my view, concerns the target of the criticism. The Israeli army, with its hundreds of thousands of troops and its experts, is not primarily responsible for the mistakes made before, on, and after October 7, 2023. Questions and criticisms must be directed first and foremost at the top political echelons. Finally, ‘Naza‘ fails to present the context—both historical and current. I doubt that the Venice jury and the majority of viewers around the world who have seen or will see the film understood or will understand what is shown on screen without that context. Israel is engaged in a war fought not only on the ground with weapons and ammunition but also on the propaganda front with images and words. The risk of providing arguments to the enemy in the propaganda war is equivalent to the risk of supplying them with weapons and ammunition. The creators likely sought to hold up a mirror to reality for Israeli and international audiences. The reality of the Gaza conflict is far more complex. A shard from a broken mirror can reflect only a distorted and incomplete image.