Jonathan Glazer says Israel’s retaliation over NAZA ‘more venal’ than anticipated

NAZA is an award-winning documentary produced by the Guardian. It examines Israel’s military operations in Gaza through interviews with people who have knowledge of the military systems used during the war. Its central claim concerns how technology, surveillance and targeting enabled attacks in which civilian deaths were known to be likely.

The film contains 24 interviews with Israeli military insiders. They describe an AI-assisted apparatus of mass surveillance that was activated during the Gaza war. According to the documentary, the systems helped identify Hamas operatives even when large numbers of Palestinian civilians would also die.

That account has made NAZA politically explosive. Israeli government officials have tried to discredit its content, and the military issued a 10-page response. The film’s release has also prompted legal threats, public protests and threats against its directors, while international organizations have accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.

The Israeli government responded to NAZA with denunciations and proposed legal action. It announced plans aimed at stripping citizenship from people who “smear” Israeli soldiers. Officials also accused co-directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor of treason.

The government ordered senior legal and security officials to find and prosecute soldiers and officers interviewed in the documentary. The stated reason was that their testimony caused “harm to Israel’s diplomatic and security interests.” The Israel Defense Forces also issued a 10-page response, while its chief of staff said it would use “every tool at our disposal” against the film.

The backlash extended beyond official measures. Far-right activists threatened to hunt down Abraham and Szor. Demonstrators gathered outside Szor’s parents’ home and demanded that she face the death penalty. A mural showing the filmmakers through gun sights appeared in Ashdod, adding a direct physical threat to the political campaign against the documentary.

NAZA’s reported scale is unusually broad for a documentary about military systems. The film was based on interviews with more than 100 sources who had knowledge of the systems used in the Gaza war. Within that reporting, 24 Israeli military insiders describe the surveillance and targeting apparatus.

Its international reach is also expanding. NAZA is in UK cinemas and is due to screen in more than 50 countries. It premiered at the Venice film festival, where it received a 25-minute standing ovation, then won the festival’s special jury prize. In Italy, it opened at No 1, surpassing Avengers Endgame: Encore.

The distribution plan goes beyond cinemas. The film will be available free on the Guardian’s website from late November. Its release has already produced official rebuttals, threats and an Israeli government-backed online film project designed to mimic NAZA’s style and challenge its findings.

AI-assisted surveillance makes the controversy especially serious because it connects advanced technology with decisions about life and death. NAZA presents an account in which systems helped identify Hamas operatives during the Gaza war while the military knew that large numbers of Palestinian civilians would also die.

The film’s mechanism is an apparatus of mass surveillance and targeting. Twenty-four Israeli military insiders describe how it was activated and used. The documentary was built from interviews with more than 100 sources familiar with the military systems, giving its claims a detailed evidentiary foundation, even as Israeli officials reject or challenge its content.

The political consequences are broad. Officials said the interviews harmed Israel’s diplomatic and security interests and ordered efforts to prosecute those involved. The military issued a 10-page response, while UN bodies and rights organizations cited in the article said Israel is committing genocide. The dispute will continue through public rebuttals, screenings and legal or security action.

The filmmakers are co-directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, with Jonathan Glazer serving as an executive producer. They present NAZA as an examination of the systems that allow people to harm other people. Glazer links its themes to his earlier film, The Zone of Interest.

Israeli officials and the military oppose the documentary’s account. Government figures denounced it, accused the directors of treason and pursued interviewed soldiers and officers. Military insiders are central witnesses because they describe the surveillance and targeting systems. Far-right activists have threatened the directors, while demonstrators targeted Szor’s family home.

International organizations provide a wider context for the allegations. The UN, Amnesty International, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights said Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The film is now reaching audiences worldwide, creating continuing pressure on officials, the military and the filmmakers as competing accounts circulate.

Jonathan Glazer connects NAZA with The Zone of Interest through their shared concern with dehumanization. The earlier film depicts the mundane daily lives of Nazi officers overseeing the extermination of Jews at Auschwitz. NAZA examines present-day systems and routines surrounding mass civilian killing in Gaza.

Rachel Szor said NAZA filmed inside Tel Aviv citizens’ apartments to show the ritual of gathering around television news. The aim was to reveal how viewers saw, or justified, devastation happening in Gaza. Glazer said the documentary was clearly in dialogue with his earlier film and dealt with very similar themes.

That connection also draws on Glazer’s public comments about Holocaust memory. When The Zone of Interest won the 2024 Oscar for best international film, he said Jewishness and the Holocaust should not be hijacked by an occupation. He said the film asks audiences to confront what people do now, not only what others did in the past.

The article does not define genocide, so this answer uses the established international-law meaning. Genocide involves certain acts, such as killing or causing serious physical or mental harm, committed with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. The protected group and the destructive intent are essential elements.

This differs from war crimes, which are serious violations of the laws governing armed conflict, such as deliberately attacking civilians or mistreating detainees. A war crime can occur without an intent to destroy a protected group. Crimes against humanity are widespread or systematic attacks on civilians and also do not automatically require genocidal intent.

The distinction matters for interpreting the allegations surrounding Gaza. The article reports that the UN, Amnesty International, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights have said Israel is committing genocide. NAZA’s account of targeting and civilian deaths may be relevant evidence, but a legal genocide finding requires examining intent and all other elements.