Netanyahu demands probe into sources for award-winning Gaza film NAZA

NAZA is an award-winning documentary about alleged Israeli military conduct in Gaza. Its title comes from a military term for expected civilian casualties in air strikes. The film matters because it challenges the army’s account of how targets and civilian risks are assessed.

The documentary uses testimony from 24 unnamed Israeli military whistleblowers. They accuse the army of using AI-powered systems to identify or support attacks that killed numerous Palestinian civilians. The film presents these allegations as a central part of its narrative.

The military rejects the claims and says strike selection and approval are made only by human personnel. Netanyahu has called the film false and damaging, while 43 Israeli rights groups defended its filmmakers. Investigations into the sources and suspected leaks may now determine how the claims are examined.

The film draws on testimony from 24 unnamed Israeli military sources. Their anonymity is significant because the allegations concern classified military systems and operations during Israel’s war in Gaza. The sources are presented as whistleblowers with knowledge of military practices.

According to the article, they accuse Israel’s military of using AI-powered targeting systems to kill numerous civilians. Their claims challenge the idea that humans alone selected and approved strikes. The film’s title refers to the military’s term for civilian casualties expected during air attacks.

The military has categorically rejected the allegations, calling some assertions absurd and contradictory. It says human personnel alone select and approve strikes. Israeli authorities have ordered an investigation into suspected leaks of classified information, while Netanyahu has demanded that the participants be investigated and prosecuted.

Benjamin Netanyahu demanded a comprehensive investigation into the people who participated in NAZA. He directed the chief of general staff, the head of the Shin Bet, and the attorney general to launch it. His demand targets both the anonymous sources and others involved in the film.

Netanyahu said the participants should be prosecuted for serious information security violations, criminal libel, and harm to Israel’s diplomatic and security interests. He also accused the film of presenting a false, misleading, and biased narrative that defames Israel and its military internationally.

The demand follows a separate military investigation into suspected leaks of classified information used during production. Army Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir has called for legal action against participants to be considered. The article does not say whether prosecutions have begun or what final charges authorities might bring.

The military rejects the film because it says the whistleblowers’ allegations are inaccurate. In a statement, it categorically denied the claims and described some assertions as absurd and contradictory. This is the army’s direct response to the documentary’s account of AI-assisted targeting.

The disputed issue is who makes final decisions about attacks. NAZA’s sources accuse the military of using AI-powered systems to kill civilians. The army says its procedures require human personnel to select and approve strikes, rather than allowing an automated system to make those decisions independently.

That disagreement is central to the political and legal controversy. The military has ordered an investigation into suspected leaks of classified information used in producing the film. Its position is that human control and military guidelines govern strike approval, while the documentary presents testimony challenging that account.

The filmmakers and sources could face serious legal and political consequences. NAZA directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor have been accused of treason. Netanyahu and Culture Minister Miki Zohar have threatened to revoke their Israeli citizenship, although the article does not report that this has happened.

Authorities are also considering legal action against participants. Netanyahu cited serious information security violations, criminal libel, and harm to Israel’s diplomatic and security interests. The army chief ordered an investigation into suspected leaks of classified military information used in making the film.

The exact outcome remains unclear. The article does not identify charges filed against the anonymous sources or filmmakers, nor does it report completed prosecutions. At the same time, 43 Israeli rights groups defended the filmmakers, showing that the controversy includes organized domestic opposition to the threatened action.

Anonymous testimony can be assessed by comparing it with independent records and other firsthand accounts. Useful material could include military strike logs, targeting approvals, weapons data, casualty records, satellite imagery, and communications. Investigators would need to protect sources while testing whether accounts match documented events.

The article provides one direct comparison: NAZA: The Real Story features soldiers giving testimony that refutes the original film’s allegations. Other relevant material could include Gaza Ministry of Health figures, eyewitness testimony, and reports from rights groups, though the article does not detail their evidence about targeting systems.

A credible assessment would examine each alleged strike separately. It could ask who approved it, what information the system produced, what civilians were expected nearby, and whether human personnel reviewed the decision. Independent investigators would also need to consider possible classified information, conflicting accounts, and the military’s categorical denial.

International humanitarian law governs attacks through distinction, proportionality, and precautions. Forces must direct attacks at military objectives, not civilians. Expected civilian harm must not be excessive compared with the concrete military advantage anticipated. Attacks that cannot distinguish targets from civilians are prohibited.

AI systems may process data, rank objects, or suggest targets, but their use does not erase human duties. Qualified personnel must understand the system’s limits, verify relevant information, assess civilian presence, and cancel or change an attack when the legal conditions are not met. Human approval alone is not enough if review is merely automatic or uninformed.

Military accountability rules require investigation of credible allegations and responsibility for unlawful conduct. Commanders and operators may face consequences when they order, enable, or fail to prevent violations. The article reports disputed claims and investigations, but it does not establish whether any specific strike violated international law.