NAZA, a documentary by Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor built on interviews with 24 current and former Israeli military intelligence personnel, alleges that the IDF used an AI-assisted targeting system in Gaza that identified strike targets while knowingly and systematically accepting high projected civilian casualty tolls. Its most quantified claim, as reported by outlets including ABC News, NBC News and France 24, describes a strike the filmmakers say was authorized with an anticipated toll of up to 500 civilian deaths. The film won the Special Jury Prize at the Venice International Film Festival and was reported to have received a lengthy standing ovation at its premiere.
The IDF has denied the film's central allegations, calling them a distortion of how targeting decisions are made and specifically rejecting the 500-casualty claim as "completely false." That denial has since been followed by a marked escalation in Israel's institutional response. IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir has ordered a formal legal review of the film's claims, describing them internally, according to reporting reviewed for this update, as "blood libels." Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he will advance legislation to revoke the citizenship of "anyone who slanders IDF soldiers." Culture Minister Miki Zohar has accused the directors of treason and called for their citizenship to be revoked. And the government has called for a Shin Bet investigation into both the filmmakers and the serving or former soldiers who gave testimony in the film.
What remains true of the underlying claim has not changed since this record was first published: the film's central quantified allegation — a strike said to have been authorized with an anticipated toll of up to 500 civilian deaths — has not, on the public record reviewed for this update, been tied by the filmmakers or by reporting on the film to an identifiable target, date, location, commanding officer or confirmed casualty count. The soldiers quoted in the film are reported to have spoken anonymously, which supports the credibility of firsthand testimony while limiting independent verification of specifics.
What is new is that Israel's response now extends well beyond disputing the claim on the merits. A citizenship-revocation law aimed at critics of the military, a treason accusation against journalists, and a state security investigation reaching the soldiers who provided the film's underlying testimony are significant developments in their own right, independent of whether the film's central allegation is ultimately verified or refuted. Readers should weigh both halves of this story: an allegation against the IDF that remains short on independently verifiable specifics, and a state response to that allegation that itself raises questions about legal process and press freedom that deserve separate scrutiny.