When NAZA premiered at the Venice Film Festival, it was immediately clear that this was not just another war documentary. Directed by Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, the film presents testimony from 24 current and former Israeli intelligence officers and soldiers who describe, often anonymously and under conditions of secrecy, how targeting systems, surveillance technologies, and military procedures operate during Israel's war in Gaza. The film won the Special Jury Prize at Venice and quickly became one of the most talked-about documentaries of the year.
What has made NAZA particularly controversial is not simply its criticism of Israeli military actions. Rather, it is the fact that many of the allegations come from Israelis themselves, including people who say they helped design, operate, or enforce the systems being examined. According to descriptions of the film, the interviews were conducted over several years on rooftops in Tel Aviv, with identities concealed because participants feared professional or legal consequences.
The title itself carries a disturbing meaning. According to the filmmakers and multiple reports about the documentary, "NAZA" is military slang derived from the Hebrew term for collateral damage. In the film, interviewees describe it as a numerical calculation used to estimate how many civilians are expected to be killed during a strike against a military target.
The documentary arrives at a moment when warfare is increasingly driven by data, algorithms, remote monitoring, and artificial intelligence. Over the last several years, media investigations by organizations including +972 Magazine, Local Call, and international news outlets have reported on the Israeli military's growing use of AI-assisted targeting systems. Those reports helped lay the groundwork for many of the issues explored in NAZA.
One of the film's central themes is distance. Intelligence officers sit in rooms filled with screens. Surveillance systems monitor mobile phones and communications. Targeting recommendations are generated through increasingly automated processes. Airstrikes are approved far from the neighborhoods where they ultimately land. Critics argue that this technological distance makes it easier to view people as data points rather than human beings. Supporters of military AI systems counter that technology can improve precision and reduce battlefield uncertainty.
The former soldiers featured in NAZA appear to wrestle with that contradiction. Some reportedly express guilt. Others describe becoming absorbed into a vast military bureaucracy where responsibility is spread across multiple levels of command. The film asks a difficult question that extends beyond Israel and Gaza: how does an individual maintain moral responsibility when operating inside a system designed to function like a machine?
Israeli officials and military representatives have strongly rejected the film's allegations. The IDF has publicly disputed the documentary's portrayal of military operations and challenged the credibility of anonymous testimony. Israeli officials have described the project as misleading and damaging to the country's international standing.
Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have called for investigations into those involved with the film, while political figures discussed measures that could affect the filmmakers themselves. Those reactions have only increased global attention on the documentary and fueled debate over freedom of expression, whistleblowing, and government accountability.
The controversy surrounding NAZA also reflects a deeper divide within Israeli society. The documentary highlights what its directors describe as a gap between the language used inside military and intelligence institutions and the realities experienced by civilians on the ground. Several interviewees reportedly discuss how military terminology can transform civilian deaths into statistics, operational calculations, or abstract metrics. Critics of the war argue that such language obscures human suffering.
The film does not claim to offer a neutral account. It is an investigative documentary built around a specific argument: that civilian casualties in Gaza are not simply accidental consequences of war but are tied to systems of surveillance, targeting, and decision-making that can be examined and questioned. Whether viewers ultimately accept that argument or reject it, NAZA forces a conversation that many governments would prefer to control rather than confront.
Perhaps the strongest reason the film has resonated internationally is that its implications extend far beyond Israel and Gaza. Militaries around the world are investing heavily in artificial intelligence, predictive analytics, mass surveillance, and automated targeting tools. The technologies discussed in NAZA represent a future that many nations are actively pursuing.
As a result, the documentary is not merely about one conflict. It is about what warfare becomes when algorithms increasingly influence life-and-death decisions, when surveillance becomes permanent, and when the people making decisions are separated from the people living with the consequences. Humanity is no longer relevant.
The film is not simply challenging military actions. It is challenging the systems, assumptions, and technologies that define modern warfare itself.
We are a fully subscriber-supported publication. We feature citizen journalists unapologetically. Help us grow and fuel honest, citizen journalism by becoming a paid member.
We read your comments, so come and share your opinions with us and our subscribers.
📽️ Credit: Stateside Podcast
