An Israeli documentary about the conduct of Israel's war in Gaza has rapidly become one of the most controversial films in the country's recent history, triggering a political storm in Jerusalem and an increasingly international debate over the use of artificial intelligence in warfare.

“NAZA,” directed by Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, received the Special Jury Prize at the 83rd Venice International Film Festival after its premiere generated a reported 25-minute standing ovation. The film is based on interviews with 24 Israeli military and intelligence insiders, whose identities were concealed for security reasons.

But what has generated the fiercest reaction is not the film's success in Venice. It is its central allegation: that systems used by Israeli military intelligence, including the AI-assisted targeting system known as “Lavender,” played a significant role in the identification and killing of Palestinians in Gaza and contributed to a system in which civilian casualties were anticipated and accepted on a large scale.

The Israel Defense Forces categorically reject those allegations.

The result is an extraordinary confrontation between Israeli filmmakers, the country's military establishment and senior government politicians — with the controversy now extending beyond cinema into questions of military law, intelligence, artificial intelligence and the possibility of an independent investigation.

What Is “NAZA”?

The film's title refers to a Hebrew military-intelligence term associated with anticipated collateral damage in a planned strike.

The documentary examines how Israel's intelligence and targeting systems allegedly operated during the Gaza war, focusing particularly on the relationship between human decision-makers and computerized systems.

According to the filmmakers, the documentary grew out of investigative reporting previously published by The Guardian, +972 Magazine and Local Call concerning Israeli intelligence and targeting practices in Gaza.

The filmmakers say they spent nearly three years investigating the issue.

The film's sources include 24 Israeli military and intelligence personnel who agreed to speak anonymously. Their faces and voices were digitally altered, and interviews were conducted at night on rooftops in Tel Aviv.

The purpose, Abraham has said, was to allow insiders to describe how the systems operated while protecting them from identification.

Allegation: Was AI Used to Help Identify Targets?

One of the most controversial elements of NAZA concerns Lavender, an artificial-intelligence-assisted system previously described in investigative reporting.

According to the film, Lavender analyzed large amounts of information collected through Israeli surveillance of Gaza and was used to identify individuals believed to be associated with Hamas and other militant organizations.

The film's interviewees describe a system in which enormous numbers of potential targets could be generated and then passed through a military process for further review.

The documentary argues that this created an unprecedented degree of automation in the targeting process.

But an important distinction lies at the heart of the controversy.

The existence of AI-assisted intelligence systems does not by itself establish that artificial intelligence independently decided whom Israel would kill.

The IDF insists that decisions regarding target selection and approval were made by human personnel, not by artificial intelligence.

The military has specifically rejected the characterization of the war as an automated "killing machine."

The IDF: "The Allegations Are Categorically Rejected"

The Israeli military has mounted an unusually forceful response.

In an official statement, the IDF said it categorically rejects the allegations contained in the film.

The military questioned the credibility and provenance of the anonymous testimonies, saying it could not verify the identities of the people presented as military or intelligence personnel, their ranks or their involvement in the events they describe.

The IDF also said some claims attributed to relatively junior personnel concerned strategic or intelligence matters that would allegedly have been outside their professional knowledge.

It further accused the filmmakers of using legal terminology incorrectly and of conflating unintended civilian casualties resulting from lawful attacks with deliberate attacks on civilians.

The military's position is that Israel targets terrorist organizations, principally Hamas, while seeking to comply with international law and minimize civilian casualties.

The 500-Civilian Claim Becomes a Flashpoint

One of the most explosive claims associated with the film is an allegation that the IDF planned a strike in which approximately 500 civilian deaths were anticipated.

The IDF has categorically denied this.

According to the military, it has never planned, approved or conducted a strike in Gaza in which 500 civilians — or anything approaching that number — were expected to be killed.

The IDF also said that no credible evidence had been presented to support the claim.

The allegation has nevertheless become central to the political controversy surrounding NAZA because it goes directly to the question of whether civilian casualties were merely an unintended consequence of military operations or were incorporated into operational decision-making.

That distinction could have profound legal implications.

The Political Explosion in Israel

The film has triggered condemnation from senior figures across much of Israel's political spectrum.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described NAZA as "shocking incitement" and accused it of contributing to international antisemitism. Reuters reported that Netanyahu attacked the documentary amid the growing controversy over its allegations.

Culture Minister Miki Zohar went considerably further.

Zohar accused Abraham and Szor of treason and called for their Israeli citizenship to be revoked. He also demanded an examination of how the filmmakers obtained their material and whether their actions could constitute assistance to an enemy during wartime.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir called the film antisemitic and attacked its creators.

Former IDF chiefs who are now major political figures also joined the criticism.

Gadi Eisenkot, chairman of Yashar and a former IDF chief of staff, accused the filmmakers of presenting a distorted picture of Israel's military and harming the country during wartime.

Former defense minister and IDF chief Benny Gantz similarly defended the military's conduct, arguing that the IDF maintains exceptionally high moral and legal standards.

The breadth of the political reaction is significant: the controversy is not confined to the government's right wing.

The Military Now Considers Legal Action

The controversy escalated further on Monday when IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir instructed the military's senior legal authorities to examine possible legal action against the film and its creators.

Zamir accused NAZA of defaming the military and described its presentation as a deliberate distortion of reality.

He also ordered a separate investigation into the alleged leaking of classified information used in the production of the documentary.

The move transforms the controversy from a political dispute into a potential legal and security matter.

At the same time, IDF spokesman Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin said the military wanted to see the documentary in full so that it could respond to its claims in a substantive manner.

That request is important because much of the Israeli public debate has so far been based on excerpts, promotional material and descriptions of the film rather than on the complete documentary.

Abraham: "The Testimonies Were Verified"

Yuval Abraham has strongly rejected the suggestion that NAZA relies on unverified allegations.

In a recent Israeli television interview, he said the identities of the sources were verified by the filmmakers and that the specific cases described in the film were investigated.

He also emphasized that the documentary was produced in cooperation with The Guardian, whose investigative team had access to the underlying material.

Abraham has challenged Israeli media to conduct their own investigations into the rules of engagement and civilian casualties in Gaza.

He argues that the documentary's purpose is not to attack individual Israeli soldiers but to examine the systems and policies through which military decisions were made.

The Lavender Question Is Bigger Than One Film

The controversy surrounding NAZA cannot be separated from the earlier international debate over Lavender.

Previous investigations by +972 Magazine, Local Call and The Guardian had already raised questions about the use of automated systems to identify suspected militants in Gaza.

The new documentary takes those investigations and places them within a broader narrative about the transformation of warfare.

The central question is no longer simply whether AI is used by militaries.

Modern militaries routinely employ algorithms to process intelligence, identify patterns and assist commanders.

The much more difficult question is:

How much decision-making authority can be delegated to an algorithm when the consequence may be the death of a human being?

That question is increasingly relevant not only to Israel but to the United States, China, Russia and every advanced military developing AI-assisted weapons and intelligence systems.

Could NAZA Lead to an Independent Investigation?

This may ultimately prove to be the most important consequence of the controversy.

The IDF rejects the allegations. The filmmakers insist that their sources and findings were thoroughly investigated. Politicians on both sides are drawing sharply different conclusions.

That leaves a fundamental evidentiary gap.

If the allegations are false, an independent investigation could potentially demonstrate that.

If some of the allegations are accurate, an independent investigation could establish who authorized what, what information was available to decision-makers, how AI systems were used and what human oversight existed before strikes were approved.

The question is particularly important because the allegations concern not merely individual battlefield decisions but potentially systemic procedures.

From Cinema to a Global Debate Over AI Warfare

NAZA's impact is already extending well beyond Israel.

The film's Venice success has ensured that its allegations are reaching an international audience at precisely the moment when governments and militaries worldwide are accelerating investment in artificial intelligence.

Its central dilemma is universal:

If an algorithm identifies a person as a likely militant, who is responsible when that identification is wrong?

And if the algorithm produces thousands of potential targets, how much human scrutiny is realistically possible?

Those questions have become central to the emerging debate over autonomous and semi-autonomous warfare.

Israel's International Image Is Also at Stake

The political battle over NAZA is occurring against an already intense international debate over Israel's conduct in Gaza.

For the film's supporters, its significance lies precisely in the fact that it was made by Israelis with access to former or current military insiders.

For its critics, the documentary risks reinforcing international accusations against Israel without adequately presenting Hamas's role, the circumstances of October 7 or the operational challenges faced by Israeli forces.

The disagreement therefore extends beyond the factual claims made in the film.

It is also a battle over narrative, legitimacy and Israel's moral standing in the international arena.

The Next Test: Can the Film Be Seen in Israel?

One of the most intriguing developments is that Abraham says he wants NAZA to be screened widely in Israel.

That creates an extraordinary situation.

An Israeli documentary made by Israeli filmmakers, based partly on testimony from Israeli military insiders, has become an international political controversy — while its creators are facing calls from government officials for severe action against them.

Abraham has said that Israel remains his home and that he wants the film to be shown there.

Whether that happens could become a test of how Israeli society handles an extremely uncomfortable form of internal criticism during wartime.

The Bigger Question: What Really Happened in Gaza?

At this stage, it is essential to distinguish between allegation, evidence and fact.

NAZA presents serious allegations based on anonymous testimonies.

The IDF rejects those allegations and says the film contains unverified and misleading claims.

The filmmakers say their sources and cases were verified.

The military is now considering legal action and investigating the alleged disclosure of classified material.

The controversy therefore cannot be resolved by political declarations alone.

It requires evidence.

And that may be the most important legacy of NAZA.

The film has forced into the public arena a question that is larger than the documentary itself:

When artificial intelligence becomes part of the chain leading from intelligence collection to a decision to strike, where does human responsibility begin — and where can it no longer be delegated?

That question is likely to follow Israel, and the world's militaries, long after the controversy surrounding NAZA has subsided.