# Two films called Naza tell different Gaza war stories A sourced comparison of the Venice prize film NAZA and the Israeli rebuttal NAZA: The Real Story: makers, speakers, claims, evidence, and where to watch. ## Key takeaways - The Venice film NAZA, by Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, premiered on 10 September 2026 and won the Special Jury Prize at the 83rd Venice Film Festival (The Free Press; Jerusalem Post). - Coverage timed that film at about 80 minutes and reported a 25-minute standing ovation at its premiere (New York Times; Fox News). - On 1 October 2026 the IDF’s published line was that NAZA “presents a distorted, misleading, and disingenuous picture” of targeting, and that it relies on unverifiable anonymous testimony (Arsen Ostrovsky; Jerusalem Post). - NAZA: The Real Story, credited to Lt. Col. (res.) Roi Danino, Hagai Gutman and Ariel Averbuch, was presented as a counter-film and promoted as “setting the record straight” (Jerusalem Post; Israel Institute of New Zealand). ## Two films, one acronym In 2026 two documentaries arrived under nearly the same name. Both take “Naza” from the IDF’s everyday Hebrew abbreviation for nezek agavi, collateral damage: incidental civilian harm when a military objective is struck. That vocabulary is not a confession of intent. Under the law of armed conflict, an attacker may strike a lawful military objective even when some civilian harm is expected, provided the attack is directed at the objective and the incidental harm is not excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated; a commander is also expected to cancel or suspend a strike if it becomes apparent that the incidental harm would be excessive. Estimating such harm is how a law-abiding force tries to keep a strike inside those rules. The Venice film treats the word as the key to a system of mass civilian killing. The later Israeli film treats the same word as the starting point for a different account of how the war in Gaza was fought. Readers can watch both and decide which testimony, and which on-screen material, they find more credible. The first film, NAZA, was written and directed by the Israeli journalists Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, previously co-directors of the Oscar-winning No Other Land. It was a late addition to the official competition of the 83rd Venice Film Festival, premiered on 10 September 2026, and won the Special Jury Prize two days later. Festival and trade coverage associate the production with the United Kingdom; The New York Times reported that it was co-produced by The Guardian, and CNN named Jonathan Glazer as an executive producer. The New York Times and Breitbart described an 80-minute film; The Free Press, CNN, Fox News and The New York Times reported a 25-minute standing ovation at the premiere. The festival reception is not in dispute. What the anonymous speakers allege is. The second film, [NAZA: The Real Story](https://nazadocumentary.com/film), was released online in early October 2026. A post naming the makers listed reserve Lieutenant Colonel Roi Danino, Hagai Gutman and Ariel Averbuch. The Jerusalem Post presented the work as a counter-film “aimed directly at discrediting the claims” in the Venice documentary. It is not a festival title. It was made to meet the Venice film on the same terrain: the word “Naza,” Israeli military speech, and the charge that Gaza targeting became a licence to kill civilians. ## Who speaks, and how the camera is used Both discussions of the Venice film return to the same visual setup. The Financial Times described Abraham on a Tel Aviv rooftop at night, taking testimony from people whose faces are shrouded in shadow, with apartment windows in the cutaways. The New York Times reported 24 people described as Israeli intelligence officers and soldiers, unidentified, with faces and voices altered. Reviewers and stills show speakers as dark silhouettes. The IDF later said it could not verify who those people were. The Jerusalem Post reported the army’s position that the film relies on unverifiable anonymous testimonies and contains legal inaccuracies, and that trained military and legal officials, not an algorithm, make strike decisions and assess civilian harm. The New York Times quoted the military as faulting “anonymous testimonies from individuals whose identity cannot be verified.” The Real Story changes the witness list even where it occupies similar rhetorical ground. The Jerusalem Post framed it as an explicit rebuttal. Promotional posts said it offered a firsthand account meant to “set the record straight” on the war against Hamas. The films therefore ask the viewer to trust different kinds of source: unnamed people whose ranks cannot be checked, versus people the rebuttal presents as willing to speak as commanders and intelligence officers, still inside wartime security limits. Neither format, by itself, proves a targeting policy. ## What each film claims, and what it shows Abraham and Szor’s film, as summarised by The Free Press, The New York Times, CNN and The Financial Times, argues that civilian deaths in Gaza were not an accidental by-product of fighting Hamas but were built into targeting. Interviewees are reported to describe “Naza” values, expected civilian deaths attached to a target; the use of surveillance and, in the film’s account, artificial intelligence; and a process in which homes and families were easier to strike than terrorists in the open. The New York Times reported one speaker saying Israel had knowingly launched strikes that killed 20, 30 or even 300 civilians, and that in one case approval was given for a strike that could kill 500. Those are claims made on camera by anonymous speakers, not findings of a court. The Free Press noted that shock at the mere fact that the IDF estimated civilian deaths before a strike does not, by itself, convert those deaths into deliberate murder; calculating expected incidental harm is what distinction and proportionality require. The IDF’s 1 October 2026 line answered in public. Posts circulating that day quoted the army as saying the film “presents a distorted, misleading, and disingenuous picture of the IDF’s target planning and striking process,” and pointed readers to a full written response. Earlier, The New York Times reported that the military, which said it had viewed only excerpts, denied planning, approving or carrying out a strike in which 500 civilians or anything near that number were anticipated to be killed, and said it had operated in accordance with international law. Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir called the film a work of “blood libels” and “deliberate distortions of reality.” Readers should treat that as the institution’s defence, just as they should treat anonymous testimony as unverified until names, dates and strike files can be checked. The Real Story does not spend its running time litigating each Venice quote. The Jerusalem Post presented it as an effort to discredit the Venice thesis rather than to restage it. Urban-warfare specialist John Spencer, discussing the same targeting debate, argued that calculating how much collateral damage the law permits, and then trying to stay inside that limit, is the opposite of a policy of extermination, and that Hamas’s method of fighting from among civilians is designed to turn those lawful calculations into a political weapon. The New York Times reported that the military and Israeli commentators also faulted the Venice film for failing to acknowledge Hamas’s strategy of embedding terrorists and infrastructure among civilians. Pictures and open interviews can be selective too. The wider argument over aid and hunger is contested; a companion note on this site sets [Hamas and humanitarian aid](https://nazadocumentary.com/blog/hamas-and-humanitarian-aid) against captured material, and another sets out [the famine claim](https://nazadocumentary.com/blog/the-gaza-famine-claim). The moral categories are not interchangeable. One film asks whether a democratic army’s targeting system became a machine for killing civilians. The other asks whether a terrorist organisation that massacred Israelis on 7 October 2023, took hostages into a dense city, and embedded among non-combatants can be fought without civilian harm. Hamas is not a state under the law of armed conflict in the way Israel is. International law still binds the attacker to distinction and proportionality. That is precisely why “Naza” exists as staff jargon, and why both films seized it. Incidental harm in a strike on a military objective is not the same act as the deliberate murder of civilians on 7 October. ## Reception, and where each can be watched Israeli official reaction to the Venice film was harsh. Culture Minister Miki Zohar said he would act to revoke the directors’ citizenship and spoke of betrayal of the state, according to The New York Times and The Jerusalem Post. CNN reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened to revoke the directors’ citizenship. Breitbart quoted him saying, of the film’s appearance at Venice, “We are fighting global antisemitic incitement,” and “When it comes from within us, it’s simply unbearable.” Far-right protesters gathered outside Szor’s parents’ home. Festival critics, including in The Financial Times, treated the film as an essential indictment. Those are political and aesthetic judgements, not a verdict on every strike. The Real Story was presented, in turn, as a copy and as a rebuttal. The Jerusalem Post called it a counter-film. Israeli-aligned accounts promoted a free stream and used the phrase “setting the record straight.” A government or embassy share is not independent verification; it is a state, or its friends, choosing a narrative. The Venice NAZA is a theatrical and festival title. The New York Times recorded a U.S. festival premiere on 26 September 2026; CNN listed it among the season’s most discussed documentaries. It is not the free stream on this site. The Real Story is the film this site hosts. Related explainers on [hostage recovery](https://nazadocumentary.com/blog/how-the-idf-finds-hostages) and [the genocide allegation](https://nazadocumentary.com/blog/the-genocide-claim) sit beside it for readers who want documents rather than applause. Watch both. Check who is named. Check what the army published. Then judge the pictures, not the title.