When I heard that “NAZA” got a 25-minute standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival where it won the Special Jury Prize, it seemed this response was not organic. I watched “NAZA” on Sept. 30 in a Manhattan theater with an audience of about 60 people. There was no standing ovation, though one man shouted, “We f—ing did this!” I think he meant America.
“NAZA” gets its title from the Israeli phrase for “Nezek Agavi,” or collateral damage. But “Collateral Damage” doesn’t have the same ring as “NAZA,” which as pro-Israel influencer Hen Mazzig pointed out, sounds like a cross between “Nazi” and “Gaza.”
The documentary has not a single official document nor a single person interviewed by name, or with a visible face. There are 24 people purported to be from Israeli intelligence, and their faces are darkened out. The largest claim is that it was approved to kill up to 500 Palestinian civilians for one Hamas target.
Had director Yuval Abraham been a serious documentarian interested in truth, he would have asked: Who was the target? Was it the Oct. 7 mastermind Yahya Sinwar or Mohammed Deif? He doesn’t ask. This allows Israel to look more evil.
Documentaries can be one-sided. They can include anonymous subjects. But to have every source be anonymous, to not name a single specific person targeted, and not name a single specific day of an attack demonstrates the director does not prioritize a truthful and serious look at what has taken place.
Genocide?
The ad for the film refers to “mass killing” and not genocide which is odd considering this has been the claim by many. For most of the film, there is no effort to claim there was a genocide. Ironically, showing that Israel was calculating the collateral damage, as well as one scene factoring in who had left after warnings, points to the evidence that it was not a genocide. Perhaps Abraham was troubled by this. He was able to get one subject to say it was a genocide. He doesn’t say it in a confident way, nor does he describe why it is a genocide. What did the other 23 intelligence officers have to say on this issue?
Clip of Pres. Herzog’s Speech Is Edited To Demonize Him
On Oct. 12, 2023, Israeli President Isaac Herzog took questions from the media. “NAZA” includes a clip of him saying, “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible” in reference to Palestinians. Herzog did in fact say this sentence, and this clip is used to imply he meant all Palestinians should be killed. This is false. Abraham is betting that viewers are too lazy to go watch the actual press conference in which Herzog said some civilians were involved in the attack on Oct. 7 and decades ago could have risen up when Hamas staged a coup against Fatah. But in the press conference Herzog says Israel would be following international law. Asked again by a journalist if he will be holding the civilian population responsible, Herzog said they would abide by international law and every operation is reviewed legally. “NAZA” wants its audience to think Herzog said the IDF would act holding every Gazan responsible for Oct. 7, when this is false. Abaraham knows most viewers will not go check the source material.
I did not expect there to be scenes of Shani Louk’s corpse being spit on in the back of a car, half-naked and dead, or the Bibas children in tiny, child-sized coffins. We get that. But why not show scenes of Palestinian parents suffering at the loss of their children? Ask any American to name one Palestinian killed, and other than Hind Rajab, they likely won’t be able to name one. Why did Abraham not take the time to educate the world on the names of a few Palestinians killed, if he wants people to care about their suffering?
Netanyahu as the Only Obstacle to a Peace Deal
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is running again in elections on Oct. 27. It is no coincidence that the film comes out near the election. That’s fine. The film presents Netanyahu as someone who is an obstacle for peace. People are free to feel that he is or is not. But I’d like Abraham to let the world know what deal would be accepted by Hamas if Netanyahu had offered one. The answer? None. Hamas is only mentioned a couple of times in the film, downplaying its existence and atrocities while placing most of the blame on Netanyahu and Israel. Abraham doesn’t ask any of the 24 subjects if most Israelis no longer support in a two-state solution after Oct. 7 because the answer would be “yes” and it would not allow him to paint the picture of Netanyahu as uniquely evil. And of course, Abraham does not include the clip of Hamas official Ghazi Hamad saying Hamas will do Oct. 7 again and again and are prepared to “pay the price.” He knows most viewers will not do their own research. Of course, there is also no clip of a Hamas official explaining that the tunnels were only for Hamas fighters not civilians.
It Appears that the Director Wants Israelis to Be Viewed as Nazis
Abraham said in interviews he did no attempt to verify anything said by the people he interviewed. He has also said Israel has too much power and he hopes his film will help level the playing field through international pressure. One subject in “NAZA” says he could never understand how the Nazis did what they did, but now he does. There isn’t much elaboration, but it’s enough to light the fuse.
Jonathan Glazer is an executive producer of “NAZA.” Glazer, who is Jewish, directed “The Zone of Interest,” a movie that erased Jews from the Holocaust and showed Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss and his wife going about their business as if Jews were not being slaughtered nearby.. At the Oscars, Glazer said that the film was meant to confront the present, not merely the past, and he said, ‘We stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation …” None of these ideas are new. They go back to Soviet propaganda from 1964-67 to make Israel go from being perceived as the David to the Goliath.
That Nothing Is Verifiable Is the Point
There is also a claim that an entire building was taken out because a low-level Hamas operative was there. Who was the operative? What was the building? When was the attack? Of course, these questions are unanswered. There is also a claim that Israel could have killed Hamas members in the daytime, but instead chose to kill them with their families. Once again, no names or dates are given. It goes without saying it is better to kill as few civilians as possible. Specific cases should be investigated in all wars, including this one. The film relies on throwing things up in the air, hoping they will land hard, because many in the public are uninformed and predisposed to believe the narrative that Israel is evil.
What Will Be the Impact of “NAZA”?
It’s been reported the film could be streamed for free in November. Calls for the two Israeli directors to have their citizenship revoked will only have the result of making people more interested in the film and imagine there must be some incriminating evidence. It’s a poorly made propaganda film that would have had far more impact if done in a way that took journalistic standards into account. I will be curious to see the reaction of the Palestinian community and if they are offended by not being included. Critical thinkers who watch the film will raise the questions I have, but a majority of people watch documentaries not for the purpose of learning something new, but to reinforce the narrative they already believe, whether it is fact-based or not. “Naza” is not successful on any level as a documentary, but if judged on awards, and getting people who were already angry angrier, it very well may be.
