# Debunking NAZA

_An analysis by our team, October 2026_

NAZA, the 2026 film by Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor released with The Guardian, presents itself as a documentary. It is a work of persuasion. Its language, its interviews and its editing lead the viewer, scene by scene, to a single conclusion decided in advance: that Israel is committing genocide.

This page sets out, first, what the English subtitles change in the soldiers’ words; then what the IDF answered and what journalists, critics and officers found; and last, our own analysis of more than forty scenes, each with the technique of influence it uses, named in the vocabulary of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP). Quotations from the film are translated from the Hebrew.

## What the subtitles change

Most viewers of NAZA do not speak Hebrew. They know what the soldiers said only from the English subtitles, and in several places the subtitles say more than the soldier did: a word is added, a hedge is dropped, and a vague remark becomes a firm claim. No interpretation is needed here. Set side by side, the words spoken and the words on screen do not match.

- **Spoken in Hebrew:** “The feeling is that this is what needs to be done.”
  **English subtitle:** The sense in Israeli society is that that’s what we should do.
  The soldier speaks of a feeling, nothing more. The subtitle hands that feeling to the whole of Israeli society, and a viewer abroad hears a nation that wants this done. (Found by our team in the film)
- **Spoken in Hebrew:** “Ahmed and his whole family.”
  **English subtitle:** Ahmed and his family will die.
  Pointing to an apartment on his screen, the soldier names who lives there. The subtitle adds that they will die. ([The Times of Israel](https://www.timesofisrael.com/nazas-claims-about-idf-conduct-in-gaza-are-grave-so-are-the-films-journalistic-flaws/), 2026-09-27)
- **Spoken in Hebrew:** “There was an approval of, like, 500 for a single person.”
  **English subtitle:** There was approval once to kill 500 for one human target.
  The soldier hedges and never says “kill”. The subtitle drops the hedge and adds the killing, and this is the claim the film put in its trailer. ([The Times of Israel](https://www.timesofisrael.com/nazas-claims-about-idf-conduct-in-gaza-are-grave-so-are-the-films-journalistic-flaws/), 2026-09-27)

A viewer who does not speak Hebrew has no way to notice. The film’s hardest lines reach its audience abroad in words the soldiers did not say.

## What the IDF said

The IDF answered the film several times: first when it premiered in Venice, then about the claim used in its trailer, and finally in a ten-page written response. The filmmakers had not put their allegations to the IDF before release and did not give it a copy of the film when asked. Statements are quoted as published.

> The IDF firmly rejects the allegations made in this film. The film relies on anonymous testimonies from individuals whose identity cannot be verified, including whether they served in the IDF or not, in what capacity, or whether they were involved in the matters about which the allegations are being made.
>
> IDF Spokesperson’s Unit, [X · Israel Defense Forces](https://x.com/IDF/status/2098399911750389869), 2026-09-11

> This is completely false. The IDF has never planned, approved, or carried out a strike in Gaza in which 500 civilians or anything near that number were anticipated to be killed. Nor was any credible claim raised throughout the war suggesting that an IDF strike had caused anything near that number of fatalities. The filmmakers couldn’t possibly verify this claim, there is no real supporting evidence, and yet they published it anyway.
>
> IDF Spokesperson’s Unit, on the claim of 500 civilians, [X · Israel Defense Forces](https://x.com/IDF/status/2099241925848994269), 2026-09-13

> The claims presented in the promotional material are inaccurate, some of which are portrayed in a distorted and misleading manner, disconnected from the reality on the ground. To enable a substantive, professional, and fact-based discussion, rather than one based on misleading portrayals, I invite the filmmakers to allow IDF representatives to view the film in full so that we can address each of the allegations it raises on its merits.
>
> Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin, IDF Spokesperson, [Jewish News](https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/new-documentary-about-idf-strikes-in-gaza-causes-anger-in-israel/), 2026-09-15

> In the quoted segments there are claims about national and military strategy that are clearly not within the knowledge of junior-level soldiers. Decisions on selecting and approving strikes in the IDF are made by human personnel only, according to IDF guidelines, and not by artificial intelligence.
>
> IDF Spokesperson’s Unit, [Ynet](https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/bkapplrtzx), 2026-09-14

> Based on what has been published thus far, this is not a film offering criticism of the IDF, nor is it an attempt to establish the truth. It is based on blood libels, deliberate distortions of reality, and grave, false accusations against IDF soldiers and commanders.
>
> Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, IDF Chief of Staff, [Al-Monitor](https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2026/09/netanyahu-says-gaza-documentary-naza-shocking-incitement), 2026-09-14

> The film “NAZA” presents a distorted, misleading, and disingenuous picture of the IDF’s target planning and striking process. The film’s narrative is based on substantial factual errors stemming from a misrepresented and manipulative depiction of reality.
>
> IDF Spokesperson’s Unit, written response, [IDF Spokesperson's Unit](https://cdn-media.web-view.net/i/ww3xwccasc/________________________16.pdf), 2026-10-01

### The IDF’s written response, claim by claim

On 1 October 2026 the IDF published a ten-page response. It says the film consists of testimonies of anonymous individuals who generally describe experiences from a limited and initial stage of a process that has many more stages, omits context essential to understanding the war, and deepens the distortion through manipulative editing and allusions to historical atrocities.

It begins with the title. NAZA is the Hebrew acronym of nezek agavi, collateral damage, a professional term used by every law-abiding military. “Paradoxically, the film presents the exceptional effort and detail the IDF devotes to estimating such harm in strikes as evidence of indifference to civilian lives. In reality, assessing expected civilian harm in strikes is a requirement under international law.” Commanders use that assessment to decide whether a strike is lawful, to add precautions, to change the plan or to cancel it.

#### Three flaws in how the film was made

- **Witnesses speaking beyond their knowledge.** The interviewees are described as intelligence personnel. Their accounts cover early intelligence stages, not the planning and approval of strikes, which belong to operational bodies. A preliminary estimate of civilians near a target is not the final estimate on which a strike was carried out: aiming at part of the target, changing the weapon or the timing, and evacuation after warnings can change it greatly. Professionally independent legal advisers review strikes, and during the war commanders restricted, changed, returned or refused strikes because of expected civilian harm.
- **No verification.** Beyond anonymous accounts, the film cites no directives, records or other corroboration. No alleged strike is identified by target, date, place or casualties, so no viewer can check it. Contrary to accepted journalistic practice, the filmmakers did not submit their allegations to the IDF before publication.
- **Context left out.** The film gives little weight to the October 7 massacre, which explains the threat Hamas posed and why Israel went to war; to Hamas embedding its operatives, weapons and infrastructure in and under hospitals, UN facilities, schools and mosques and fighting in civilian clothes; and to the steps taken to protect civilians: cancelled strikes, a Civilian Harm Mitigation Cell that issued warnings and tracked civilian presence, independent legal advisers, and more than 3.9 million metric tons of food brought into Gaza since October 2023.

#### The film’s claims and the IDF’s answers

- **The film:** There was approval for 500 civilians to be killed in a single strike.
  **The IDF:** The IDF has never planned, approved or carried out a strike in Gaza in which 500 civilians, or anything close to that number, were expected to be killed. No one has seriously alleged that any strike caused anything close to it. The filmmakers put the claim in the trailer although they could not have verified it.
- **The film:** Junior operatives could be struck with up to 20 expected civilian casualties, senior commanders with 200.
  **The IDF:** The claim confuses an approval threshold with permission to strike, and a database with a list of targets. A threshold decides only who may approve a strike; it is not a permitted number of deaths, and every commander must still judge each strike’s proportionality. Requiring higher approval above certain numbers is standard in Western militaries. No 200 threshold ever existed.
- **The film:** Lavender is a list of people to kill.
  **The IDF:** Lavender is a database that cross-references intelligence sources to keep information on terrorist operatives up to date. A person’s inclusion in it does not make him a target, let alone authorize a strike.
- **The film:** The NAZA count does not distinguish between adults and children.
  **The IDF:** That is what international humanitarian law requires: a civilian is a civilian regardless of age, and no civilian life is worth less. Throughout the war, the presence of civilians, and of children in particular, led commanders to cancel, postpone or replan strikes.
- **The film:** Civilian deaths were never checked after strikes.
  **The IDF:** Several IDF units review strike outcomes, including reports of civilian harm. The interviewees did not belong to them. These reviews led to debriefs of hundreds of incidents, and the Military Advocate General decides on criminal investigations.
- **The film:** Artificial intelligence generated tens of thousands of targets that were attacked.
  **The IDF:** Artificial intelligence does not determine whether an object or a person is a target, nor whether a target is struck. Human analysts identify targets under defined procedures; an authorized intelligence officer approves them; a wider planning process ends in an operational commander’s decision under international law. Data tools only help analysts cross-reference what they have already gathered.
- **The film:** Soldiers fired on civilians near aid distribution sites.
  **The IDF:** IDF directives prohibit targeting civilians. Near the sites, the rules of engagement allowed fire only at military operatives and suspects posing an immediate threat. The sites operated in a war zone where terrorists deliberately blended into the crowd. After tragic incidents, debriefs were held, access routes, signs and barriers were added, and exceptional incidents were referred to the General Staff’s fact-finding mechanism.
- **The film:** Buildings were bombed “according to the algorithm” where a quarter of residents remained, because they had been warned.
  **The IDF:** An algorithm has never decided on a strike. A strike starts from a military objective; without one, nothing is planned, whatever the number of civilians. A warning never permits ignoring civilians who remain. Where Hamas turned clusters of buildings into combat compounds, each building still had to be designated individually and pass a proportionality assessment.
- **The film:** A belief spread in the IDF that there are no uninvolved civilians in Gaza.
  **The IDF:** The distinction between combatants and civilians is written into every IDF targeting directive. One interviewee’s feeling does not represent the IDF, its commanders or its orders, or the warnings, careful planning and cancelled strikes that put the distinction into practice.
- **The film:** An interviewee was asked whether this was genocide, and said yes.
  **The IDF:** The allegation is outrageous and unfounded. Asking people who are not experts, and who took no part in command decisions, for their personal view of a legal term is manipulative and irrelevant. Genocide requires the specific intent to destroy a group, and no such intent ever existed. The war’s aims were to dismantle Hamas and bring the hostages home; the IDF warned, cancelled strikes and facilitated aid to protect the very population the film says it sought to destroy.

“The tragic consequences of war do not justify distorting the facts. Serious discussion of civilian harm requires a serious account of how decisions were actually made. That is precisely what the film fails to provide.”

## What critics found

Journalists, critics, officers and legal experts in Israel and abroad examined the film and published their findings. Several of the sharpest came from writers who oppose Israel’s government and have criticised the army’s conduct of the war. Their words are quoted as published, translated where needed, with a link to each original.

### Nothing that can be checked

The film’s case rests on anonymous voices. No names, units, dates, places or strikes are given, so none of its claims can be confirmed or refuted.

> As a journalist, I don’t think I would have aired this. Because you bring no supporting evidence for the very, very grave things that they describe. We don’t have their names, their units, to know that they were really exposed to the information they’re talking about.
>
> Raviv Drucker, investigative journalist, Channel 13, to Yuval Abraham, [Jewish News](https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/new-documentary-about-idf-strikes-in-gaza-causes-anger-in-israel/), 2026-09-15

> None of the claims is corroborated—the lack of dates or names or much specific detail beyond what the interviewees recall leaves an unfortunate opening for critics.
>
> Gal Beckerman, senior editor, [The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/2026/09/missed-opportunity-documentary-movie-naza/688832/), 2026-09-30

> The filmmakers did not give the subject of the allegations — in this case, the Israel Defense Forces — an opportunity to respond before publication, a standard practice.
>
> Emanuel Fabian and Nurit Yohanan, military and Arab affairs correspondents, [The Times of Israel](https://www.timesofisrael.com/nazas-claims-about-idf-conduct-in-gaza-are-grave-so-are-the-films-journalistic-flaws/), 2026-09-27

> This is precisely where the film’s journalistic problem lies. Its case rests exclusively on anonymous statements.
>
> Richard C. Schneider, former ARD Tel Aviv bureau chief, [Neue Zürcher Zeitung](https://www.nzz.ch/feuilleton/kino-fernsehen-streaming/fuehrt-israel-den-krieg-wie-ein-videospiel-was-naza-zeigt-und-was-nicht-ld.10026098), 2026-10-01

> In NAZA there is not even one of the five Ws.
>
> Baruch Kra, investigative journalist, [Walla! News](https://www.walla.co.il/news/opinions/383956783), 2026-10-08

> A public trial in the finest anti-democratic tradition (Mussolinian, Stalinist, take your pick). Prosecutors: faces concealed. Presentation of the case: a montage of excerpts from statements. Defence lawyers: none. Third parties: none. Presiding judge: the crowd at the trial. Verdict (automatic): guilty.
>
> Historian Michele Sarfatti, quoted by Pierluigi Battista, [Il Foglio](https://www.ilfoglio.it/en/television/2026/09/14/news/how-fauda-responds-to-naza--407498), 2026-09-14

### Words put in the witnesses’ mouths

The one on-camera “yes” to genocide answers the interviewer’s own question.

> Note that the interviewee does not say it directly; rather he confirms this assessment after Abraham put the word in his mouth with his question. Journalistically speaking, that is a leading question.
>
> Tim Caspar Boehme, culture editor, [taz](https://taz.de/Debatte-um-Dokumentarfilm-Naza/!6211185/), 2026-09-27

> Only one of the interviewees uses it, and then only when prompted by one of the filmmakers, Yuval Abraham. But I heard no talk of intention in these conversations, not even really any animus or desire to kill.
>
> Gal Beckerman, senior editor, [The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/2026/09/missed-opportunity-documentary-movie-naza/688832/), 2026-09-30

> One interviewee, of the 24 anonymous soldiers and reservists who agreed to speak to their camera, is asked whether he thinks Israel is committing genocide, and he answers “yes.” What did the 20-odd other interviewees say when asked this question? Doesn’t matter.
>
> Yishai Kitchels, film critic, [Israel Hayom](https://www.israelhayom.co.il/culture/films/article/21518084), 2026-09-30

### What the numbers really mean

Officers who worked in the system explain that a NAZA figure sets who must approve a strike and what must be done to reduce harm. It is not a licence to kill that number of people.

> NAZA 20 was not an authorization to kill 20 people. It was a classification used to route a proposed strike through the appropriate review and approval process.
>
> Lt. Col. (res.) Yair Miron, Military Intelligence, [yairmiron.com](https://www.yairmiron.com/media/yair-miron-naza-manipulations-en), 2026-10-04

> When the words “Naza 500 – collateral damage estimated at 500” appear in the approval process, it means that action must be taken to reduce the collateral damage.
>
> Lt. Col. (res.) Sarit Zehavi, co-founder of the IDF’s civilian-warning unit, [The Times of Israel](https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-truth-about-naza-or-collateral-damage/), 2026-09-17

> Writing down the collateral damage does not mean we are automatically going to attack. On the contrary, the idea is to identify the risks so that we can think of ways to prevent or reduce them.
>
> Lt. Col. (res.) Sarit Zehavi, co-founder of the IDF’s civilian-warning unit, [JNS](https://www.jns.org/news/israel-news/naza-documentary-fails-to-show-idf-efforts-to-prevent-civilian-casualties-former-officer-says), 2026-09-28

> I was responsible for planning and executing thousands of strikes. I never came across such a number, not even close. I can say with absolute certainty: there was no such approved operation.
>
> A reserve colonel, fighter pilot and former commander of Ramat David airbase, on the claim of 500, [Jüdische Allgemeine](https://www.juedische-allgemeine.de/israel/kampfpilot-weist-vorwuerfe-von-naza-zurueck/), 2026-09-17

> The criticism I heard from inside, again and again, was not that the Air Force was too eager. It was that it was too cautious.
>
> Avi Lewis, reservist in the Air Force planning and operations directorate, [The Times of Israel](https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/i-worked-with-the-real-naza-heres-what-the-film-gets-wrong/), 2026-10-07

> If all of this reckless carnage were taking place, why isn’t it showing up in Gaza’s own numbers?
>
> Kyle Smith, film critic and columnist, [The Wall Street Journal](https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/naza-has-nada-on-israel-33203a03), 2026-11-02

### What the film leaves out

October 7, the hostages, Hamas fighting from homes, hospitals and tunnels, and the warnings and cancelled strikes are all largely missing.

> What brought this war to Gaza—Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre and hostage-taking—is largely outside the frame.
>
> Omer Shem Tov, held hostage by Hamas for 505 days, [The Wall Street Journal](https://www.wsj.com/opinion/hostages-like-me-were-also-nazacollateral-damage-7cfeb4aa), 2026-09-22

> If an Israeli bomb killed me, Hamas would win twice: I’d be dead, Israel would be responsible.
>
> Omer Shem Tov, held hostage by Hamas for 505 days, [The Wall Street Journal](https://www.wsj.com/opinion/hostages-like-me-were-also-nazacollateral-damage-7cfeb4aa), 2026-09-22

> There is extensive and convincing evidence of Hamas’s use of civilians as human shields.
>
> Raviv Drucker, investigative journalist, [Haaretz](https://www.haaretz.co.il/opinions/2026-09-14/ty-article-opinion/.highlight/000001a0-9b2e-dfa9-ada3-db6e79a80000), 2026-09-14

> Hamas’s asymmetric warfare, its extensive tunnel system and its use of densely populated areas for military infrastructure are barely addressed. Nor does the film say that even under international humanitarian law civilian casualties are acceptable under very specific conditions.
>
> Richard C. Schneider, former ARD Tel Aviv bureau chief, [Neue Zürcher Zeitung](https://www.nzz.ch/feuilleton/kino-fernsehen-streaming/fuehrt-israel-den-krieg-wie-ein-videospiel-was-naza-zeigt-und-was-nicht-ld.10026098), 2026-10-01

> One fact is especially difficult to reconcile with the portrait of a military indifferent to civilian life: Israel repeatedly warned Gazans before major operations and strikes.
>
> Arie Blitz, [Washington Examiner](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op-eds/4748795/naza-documentary-venice-fact-check/), 2026-10-01

> They’re calculating how much collateral damage there will be if they conduct an attack, which is required by law, and taking more precautions than anybody has ever done in history to limit it.
>
> John Spencer, urban warfare scholar, [Breitbart](https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2026/10/07/exclusive-urban-warfare-expert-john-spencer-gaza-genocide-libel-against-israel-is-greatest-lie-in-modern-history/), 2026-10-07

### Not an independent check

The Guardian published the investigations the film is drawn from and produced the film. The director said he did not verify every case.

> No name, no rank, no unit, no date. The Guardian published the investigations the film is drawn from, it produces it, and one of its journalists assisted with the edit.
>
> A Holocaust survivor and 28 public figures, in an open letter, [Alliance](https://www1.alliancefr.com/actualites/tribune-une-rescapee-de-la-shoah-et-vingt-huit-personnalites-contre-le-film-naza-6135461), 2026-10-16

> When asked during an interview by Israeli investigative journalist Raviv Drucker if he attempted to corroborate the claims of the anonymous Israelis, Abraham acknowledged that he did not verify all of the cases behind the alleged mass civilian deaths.
>
> Adam Levick, co-editor of CAMERA UK, [JNS](https://www.jns.org/opinion/adam-levick/the-premise-of-naza-doesnt-hold-up), 2026-09-20

> The moment you make a film based on how the army tried to determine the ratio between terrorists and civilian victims, you have already completely negated the genocide argument.
>
> Yossi Klein Halevi, Shalom Hartman Institute, [Il Foglio](https://www.ilfoglio.it/esteri/2026/09/17/news/se-anche-hamas-elogia-naza--407781), 2026-09-17

> Collateral damage is, by definition, harm to people who were not the target. Genocide requires the opposite: the specific intent to destroy a people. The film cannot have it both ways.
>
> Avi Lewis, reservist in the Air Force planning and operations directorate, [The Times of Israel](https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/i-worked-with-the-real-naza-heres-what-the-film-gets-wrong/), 2026-10-07

### The Nazi echo

Critics across the spectrum noticed that the title was chosen in Hebrew rather than English, and what it sounds like.

> For anyone else encountering the word, it might present as a twisted portmanteau that blends Gaza and Nazi, or at least nudges the mind in the direction of gas chambers. This doesn’t seem coincidental to me.
>
> Gal Beckerman, senior editor, [The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/2026/09/missed-opportunity-documentary-movie-naza/688832/), 2026-09-30

> Their linguistic choice of an acronym so close to the word “Nazi,” instead of the common English term, was not an accident.
>
> Adam Levick, co-editor of CAMERA UK, [JNS](https://www.jns.org/opinion/adam-levick/the-premise-of-naza-doesnt-hold-up), 2026-09-20

## In brief

- **Before the screening.** Closed screenings for small, selected audiences and heavy press coverage of a film no one could yet watch created an information vacuum. Viewers filled it with their own fears and arrived already framed by the coverage.
- **Inside the film.** Each scene uses a device of influence: hypnotic language, deleted context, reframing, loaded questions, visual and sound anchors, a collapsed timeline and an implanted Holocaust analogy. The most frequent is the hard cut from soldiers describing bombing in Gaza to lit balconies and living rooms in Tel Aviv.
- **The interviewer.** Yuval Abraham, also the co-director, does not question neutrally. He interrupts, hands the soldier pen and paper, insists on loaded definitions (“Is a baby NAZA 1?”), reframes figures (“500 is a small town in Israel”) and fixes guilt at the level of identity (“You already took part in it”).
- **The Holocaust frame.** Late in the film the symbols of the Holocaust (the memorial siren, a tribute to Claude Lanzmann, a locomotive, railway tracks, smoke) are attached to present-day Gaza. The Jewish state, through its own memory, is cast as committing a holocaust.
- **The evidence.** Hearsay is presented as fact: the soldier who describes dogs eating bodies says he did not see it. Mass graves are described in words, with no footage. Women, children and the elderly are almost absent from the frame. Bodies falling “one on top of the other” under distant sniper fire do not fit ballistics or human behaviour.

## 1. Before the screening

> If they are hiding it from us, it must be the pure truth that the establishment is afraid we will see.
>
> The indirect suggestion that restricted access plants in the audience

The release worked on its audience before the first frame. Small closed screenings and intense coverage of a film no one could yet watch built curiosity, a sense of secret knowledge and a fixed public narrative.

### 1. A film that could not be seen

NAZA was shown to small audiences while interviews, television items and articles discussed a film the public could not yet watch.

- **The underground aura.** Those who attend become a secret elite with first access. Everyone else hears about the film and waits, and the wait leaves a gap into which they project the worst they can imagine. Every number and every accusation swells before anyone has seen a frame.
- **The title.** The film is named NAZA, the Hebrew military abbreviation of nezek agavi, collateral damage, rather than the English term. The abbreviation also sounds like an Arabic name.

### 2. The vacuum effect

The media speak intensively about a film that cannot yet be seen.

- **Hunger for closure.** The mind struggles with uncertainty. When a film is talked about but cannot be watched, an information void opens.
- **Projection out of fear.** The void is filled not with facts but with anxieties. Imagination directs the accusation before a single frame has been seen.

### 3. Forbidden fruit and artificial scarcity

Access is withheld while the buzz grows.

- **Denied access as proof.** Once access is withheld, the suggestion takes hold that what is hidden must be true. Viewers in the room feel morally and intellectually above the crowd, and doubting the film would cost them membership of the enlightened group.
- **The luxury drop.** A trickle release, like a limited fashion drop, drives demand. Every bulletin about “the film that is causing a storm and is not being screened” is free exposure money could not buy.
- **Public pre-framing.** When the film finally reaches a wide audience, viewers arrive primed to look for what the news already told them, not to examine it.

## 2. The opening frame

> If I give an interview with my face showing, Israel will put me in jail for exposing them.
>
> A soldier on the rooftop, in the film’s first testimony

In its first minutes the film declares itself a documentary, borrows the familiar image of Israeli intelligence, breaks the viewer’s pattern with a cut into darkness and recasts the State of Israel as a persecutor.

### 4. A frame of authority

The film opens with a statement that it is a documentary and that faces are blurred to prevent identification, then cuts to an old black-and-white film about the Israeli Intelligence Corps.

- **Pre-framing.** Before any content, the viewer is told that what follows is documented fact, so dangerous that those who share it fear for their lives. The frame silences the inner critic in advance: a documentary is filed as fact, not as a crafted political text.

### 5. The underground-exposure effect

Nostalgic archive footage of uniformed students learning Arabic grammar (“the Arabic verb”), then a hard cut to a soldier confessing in darkness.

- **Pacing an archetype.** Western viewers know the image of the sophisticated Israeli intelligence machine from series like Fauda and Tehran. The film first matches that familiar, almost innocent picture, then leads the viewer away from it.
- **Cause and effect for a foreign audience.** The teacher’s word “verb” becomes an anchor that the editing ties to a digital system that calculates death. Israel’s language and education are made to look like the foundation of a cold system of annihilation.
- **Pattern interrupt.** The cut from a bright classroom to total darkness moves the viewer from history lesson to conspiracy thriller in one moment, and prepares them to receive what follows as secrets revealed.

### 6. Fear of the state

On the rooftop the interviewer says: “You see the city and the city doesn’t see you.” The camera looks down on Tel Aviv.

- **Reframing the state as the enemy.** Israel is framed not as a democracy protecting its secrets, as every state does, but as a body that persecutes those who speak.
- **The Big Brother metaphor.** The vague, hypnotic sentence produces detachment and a sinister sense of power. Tel Aviv becomes a blind, indifferent city beneath those who decide on life and death.

## 3. The rooftop interview

> They don’t say fifteen people are going to be killed. They say NAZA 15.
>
> A soldier describing the targeting system

The interviewer takes control of the conversation, turns a drawing exercise into a focus of attention, and steers the soldier from a technical term to the word with the most emotional weight: baby.

### 7. Pen and paper

The soldier starts to describe the targeting interface in abstract terms. The interviewer interrupts: “Draw it for a second, it helps us,” and hands him paper and a pencil.

- **Taking the lead.** With authoritative hand movements the interviewer matches the soldier’s rhythm while fixing his own authority. He runs the conversation.
- **Narrowing attention.** A small motor task pulls the soldier, and the viewer, into one narrow picture. A person who accepts one instruction finds the next easier to accept, and the instruction here is to take in the information without examining it.
- **Nominalization and repetition.** “NAZA 20, NAZA 20, NAZA 20 suddenly became a benchmark” works as a mantra. A military term whose purpose in Western armies is to limit and measure harm to civilians is reframed as a tool of dehumanisation.

### 8. The baby effect

In a clipped, pressured exchange the interviewer insists on defining babies.

> **Interviewer:** Within NAZA, is there a difference for, say, children and babies?
>
> **Soldier:** No! There isn’t!
>
> **Interviewer:** A baby is NAZA 1?
>
> **Soldier:** Yes!

- **Direct suggestion.** The interviewer brings in one of the most charged words in any language and leads the soldier to confirm the equation: the IDF counts babies as numbers in a computer program. The next step, the comparison with Nazis who reduced Jews to numbers, is left to the viewer.
- **Deletion of context.** The rapid exchange removes what the viewer would need to judge it. In reality the system counts civilian lives in order to restrict commanders, so the military objective is met while harm to the innocent is avoided where possible.

### 9. 500 for one person, and a small town

The soldier says: “There was an approval of, like, 500 for a single person”, meaning approval to kill 500 civilians to strike one man. The interviewer answers: “500 is a small town in the State of Israel.”

- **Simple deletion.** When, where, and who was the person: an arch-terrorist such as Sinwar or Mohammed Deif in an underground compound? What harm was prevented? None of it is said.
- **Reframing the figure.** The interviewer moves the number from a strike in Gaza to the erasure of an Israeli community, to produce shock and identification in the Israeli viewer.

### 10. “Like a computer game”

The soldier says: “It’s like a computer game… because it’s all from a distance.”

- **Complex equivalence.** Two different things are made the same: a remote system equals a game, and so every soldier is morally indifferent. The film omits that distance is an operational necessity in every modern army and is not in itself evidence of anything.

## 4. The windows of Tel Aviv

> Well, you already took part in it.
>
> The interviewer, fixing guilt on the soldier

The film’s signature device appears here: the hard cut from bombing in Gaza to lit windows in Tel Aviv. It recurs throughout, and with it the film turns ordinary Israeli life into evidence of indifference.

### 11. Gaza on the soundtrack, Tel Aviv on screen

The soldier describes bombing “a whole neighbourhood” in wide radii. Silence, dramatic music, and the camera peers into Tel Aviv homes: a man with a remote, people on a sofa.

- **Changing submodalities.** The mind moves from wide, distant, colourless pictures of Gaza to close, intimate, colourful pictures of Tel Aviv living rooms.
- **Combined imprinting.** As the words describe a building being blown up, the eye sees a lit building in Tel Aviv. The Israeli viewer feels the danger in their own living room; the foreign viewer learns that Israelis live calm, comfortable lives while erasing neighbourhoods nearby.

### 12. The identity trap

The soldier tries to distance himself: “At some point I couldn’t any more… I can’t take part in this.”

> **Interviewer:** Well, you took part in it.
>
> **Soldier:** What?
>
> **Interviewer:** Well, you already took part in it.

- **Guilt at the level of identity.** The interviewer does not say “you did something wrong” (behaviour) but “this is who you are now” (identity), the deepest level of change. To relieve that guilt, the soldier goes on to give ever more extreme testimony. Then another cut to the balconies of Tel Aviv closes the anchor.

### 13. Lunch on Ibn Gabirol

A soldier says that between strikes he would go out to eat on Ibn Gabirol Street or meet friends.

- **An unstated equation.** Taking a meal break is routine in every workplace, the army included. The edit leads to a conclusion it never states: whoever can eat a hamburger and go back to plan a strike is a psychopath.
- **Deleted context.** These are conscripts on long shifts in a complex operational system. Keeping a routine is a necessary defence for anyone under pressure.

### 14. Hostages, balconies and elites

From the Ibn Gabirol testimony the film cuts to the caption “We are all waiting for you” with the hostage symbol, the protests in Tel Aviv (“Bring them home now”), then people dancing on a balcony. The soldier speaks of “social elites” and says “they sell it to you as something very prestigious.”

- **A split imprint.** The same city produces the “indifferent” soldiers who eat on Ibn Gabirol and the crowds crying for the hostages. The juxtaposition quietly excuses tearing down hostage posters and reinforces the war-crimes charge.
- **Anchor collapse.** The roar of the protest raises emotion; dancing on a balcony follows at once. The collision of two strong anchors produces revulsion: Israelis weep for their hostages, yet dance and dine while their army erases Gaza. A society living in the shadow of trauma is recast as morally numb.
- **A jump to class identity.** Eating in a restaurant is tied to “elites”, “centre-left” and “high socio-economic status”. Military action is made to flow from a sated, detached class, an echo of the old libel of Jews as an elite that controls the world.
- **No one is named.** “They sell it to you”: who is “they”? Omitting the actor creates an invisible, manipulative power, and the open question keeps the viewer ready to accept the answer the film gives at the end.

## 5. History and erasure

> We hit a record. We managed to set a house on fire in eight minutes.
>
> A soldier, heard while the camera watches a woman running on a treadmill

The film folds 1948 into the present, borrows the authority of Israeli television, and sets testimony of burning houses against scenes of calm civilian life. Its questions are built to produce the answers it needs.

### 15. Timeline collapse

Tel Aviv rising from the sands in 1920, then 1940, then the caption: “Gaza and Tel Aviv are only 60 km apart… the residents of Gaza came from villages uprooted in 1948.”

- **The hidden suggestion.** The editing builds a link between 1920 and today. A modern park in Tel Aviv is associated with the events of 1948, and the viewer concludes that Tel Aviv is built on the ruins of Gaza.

### 16. Tractors and drones

The camera zooms in on a lone old house in Tel Aviv, cuts to black-and-white footage of a tractor demolishing buildings, then to a soldier saying the IDF flattens houses in Gaza.

- **Associative anchoring.** The historical tractor and the modern drone become one image. Today’s fighting is pasted onto the emotion of the 1948 narrative.

### 17. The language of cleaning

The soldier uses words such as “to flatten”, “worked by strips”, “cleaning them”, “does that look clean to you”.

- **Sterile framing.** Cleaning words distance the speaker but make him monstrous to the listener. Action against an underground terror infrastructure is reframed as purification, which the viewer hears as ethnic cleansing.

### 18. Israeli television as a witness

Through a window, an Israeli news broadcast captioned “367 days since 7/10”. The correspondent says the IDF is operating to “flatten”, so that residents will have nowhere to return to.

- **An authority anchor.** Just when the viewer may suspect the anonymous soldier of exaggerating, the film brings an official Israeli voice in daylight. The suggestion becomes: even Israel’s own media admit it.

### 19. Burning houses and a treadmill

On the soundtrack: the population moved from north to south, houses burned with olive oil and sofa cushions, and the boast “We hit a record, eight minutes.” On screen: a woman running on a treadmill behind a window.

- **Sensory splitting.** The eye sees calm, healthy daily life while the ear hears arson. The mind builds the images the film does not show, and the woman’s run becomes the picture of indifference.
- **The leading question.** The interviewer asks “How do you burn a house?”, not “Why?” or “Was there a tunnel or a danger there?” The question invites the soldier to present the act as a skill to be proud of. It may also aim to suggest burned evidence, or a parallel with the crematoria.

### 20. Families as coloured squares

The soldier draws a grid of neighbourhoods with occupancy percentages: “25% occupancy… green, yellow, red, purple at 300%.” A “green” building is struck within five to ten minutes.

- **An algorithm as licence.** The viewer absorbs a premise that is never examined: the system exists not to save lives but to license bringing buildings down on those inside. Families become coloured targets on a game board.

### 21. “Good luck to them”

A chain of questions closes a moral trap.

> **Interviewer:** And what is their view? We told people to evacuate, whoever stayed is his problem?
>
> **Interviewer:** What about people who can’t evacuate? The disabled, people who are afraid…?
>
> **Soldier:** Good luck to them!

- **Hidden premise and trap.** The first question carries a presupposition; the second springs an emotional trap. The soldier’s answer, followed by silence, becomes an anchor of cruelty. The warnings, the humanitarian corridors and the logistics of evacuating a population disappear, or are made to look like cover for a crime.

## 6. Bodies and numbers

> Forget the word ‘armed’. It’s not relevant. I saw armed men once.
>
> A soldier, before the interviewer asks who the dozens of dead were

Cranes rise in Tel Aviv while bodies are counted in Gaza. In this part the film redefines who counts as a terrorist, describes bodies left to dogs and mass graves, and reduces the soldier to a technical cog.

### 22. Tel Aviv builds, Gaza is erased

From the calculations of destruction the picture moves to building sites in Tel Aviv: welders, cranes, busy roads. A heartbeat on the soundtrack.

- **Polarity.** Gaza is dust; Tel Aviv grows. The viewer receives a message of cosmic injustice, and the rising emotion makes the next message easier to plant.

### 23. Who is a terrorist

The soldier states: “A dead terrorist in the sector is anyone you decided to kill… 140, none of them ever held a weapon.”

- **An absolute definition.** The film builds the equation “terrorist equals anyone killed”, so that Israel appears to treat every Gazan, women and children included, as a terrorist.
- **Deleted context.** Missing: the field observers’ warnings, terrorists seen laying explosives, Hamas operatives in civilian clothes directing ambushes and blending into the population. The viewer sees only a man gathering cloth, and concludes the killing is arbitrary.

### 24. Bodies and dogs

The film says that bodies are not collected and that dogs eat them.

> **Soldier:** Collecting the bodies, they don’t collect… the dogs eat them.
>
> **Interviewer:** You see this, like?
>
> **Soldier:** I couldn’t watch… people around me saw.

- **Hearsay burned in as fact.** The soldier admits he never saw it (“I never sat down at any stage to watch”). Yet the words alone create a picture of disgust that crowns the event as bestial. The message: the IDF not only kills Gazans but leaves their bodies to dogs.

### 25. “My role is technical”

Asked whether he thought of telling others not to watch, the soldier answers: “My role is technical. I’m not supposed to express any position of principle or any moral position.”

- **The banality of evil.** The soldier reduces himself from a person with a conscience to a cog. The viewer hears the classic defence of war criminals, “I only followed orders”, and the unit’s soldiers become robots rather than people facing hard dilemmas in an existential war.

### 26. Rising floors, rising bodies

The camera follows the floor numbers of a Tel Aviv tower under construction (64, 65… 72), then cuts to testimony of bodies heaped in pits in Gaza.

- **Anchor collapse.** The height of Tel Aviv and the bodies “accumulating all the time” in Gaza are set side by side until they fuse: Tel Aviv’s rise is made to look like it depends on the dead.

### 27. “Hundreds, hundreds, hundreds”

“Forget the word ‘armed’, it’s not relevant… I saw armed men once.” The interviewer: “So who are all the dozens of people?” The soldier escalates: “Hundreds, hundreds, hundreds!”

- **A universal quantifier.** One absolute statement deletes the rules of engagement, urban combat and thousands of armed terrorists in the streets. The lead plants the conclusion of random extermination with no distinction between terrorist and civilian.

### 28. Mass graves with no footage

From the drone feed the soldier describes “mass graves… graves flooded by the rain… it’s not a grave, it’s a pit of bodies… all of Gaza, bodies.”

- **Imprinting through disgust.** The film offers no documentation, neither its own nor from Gaza sources: only the words of someone presented as a soldier. Disgust shuts down the questions a viewer should ask, such as whether this was a temporary burial by Hamas or a misreading of drone footage. “Why kill them?” “I don’t know” seals the picture of pointless evil.

## 7. The bridge and the aid lines

> Just one on top of the other?
>
> The interviewer, repeating the soldier’s words over a drawing of a bridge and falling figures

The Kirya returns again and again as a visual anchor. The Prime Minister’s words play over civilian balconies, and a drawing of a bridge and falling figures becomes a shooting gallery. Here the narrative reaches its physical breaking point.

### 29. The Kirya

The camera keeps returning to the Kirya, the IDF headquarters, at night inside a busy civilian district of Tel Aviv.

- **Reframing by repetition.** Repeating one image in changing contexts changes its meaning. The legitimate defence headquarters of a sovereign state becomes a military base hidden among civilians, and the viewer is led to conclude there is no moral difference between Israel and Hamas: a total inversion of what “human shield” means.

### 30. The speech and the news report

Benjamin Netanyahu speaking about preventing the entry of goods is joined to a report by anchor Yonit Levi about “encouraging voluntary emigration”, over the lit balconies of Tel Aviv. A man paces his living room; a shutter closes as the soldier speaks of “cleaning the Strip”.

- **Deleting the aim.** The security context, keeping supplies from Hamas, is omitted. Calm residents hearing the words in silence are cast as partners in starvation and transfer, and their silence as consent.

### 31. Bodies one on top of the other

The soldier and the interviewer draw a bridge and falling figures in the notebook with matching hand movements. At 26:24 the soldier says the bodies “pile up one on top of the other”. The interviewer repeats: “Just one on top of the other?” The soldier nods.

- **The physical breaking point.** Under long-range fire at people running fast, bodies cannot fall into a neat pile; how a person falls depends on weight, speed and angle, and people do not run blindly to the same point of death. A soldier who sits at the back watching screens projects a cinematic or computer-game image onto reality. It is rhetorical exaggeration built for shock, not factual testimony.
- **A sustained anchor.** The camera rests for a long time on the drawing, so the image of a shooting gallery is already fixed in memory when the implausible figures arrive.

## 8. The Holocaust frame

> There are the guys who thwart terror, and there are the guys who thwart peace.
>
> A soldier describing his intelligence department

In its last movement the film compares Israeli society to Nazi Germany, extracts the word genocide from the soldier, and assembles the symbols of the Holocaust around present-day Gaza. It ends by turning Netanyahu’s own definition of terror against Israel.

### 32. Poland and Germany

The soldier compares the present to his school trip to Poland and to Nazi Germany: “I perceive something very bad in these Nazis, so what can I tell you about myself?”

- **A jump to historical identity.** The German public living with Nazism is equated with a person who bombs and goes home to worry about a psychology degree. The real context, a defensive war against a terror organisation that carried out a massacre, disappears.

### 33. “Strangle them”

The interviewer asks “How does it help them survive?” and “But they are the enemy, these people are the enemy?” The soldier repeats “strangle them, strangle them, strangle them” and ends: “In the end the feeling is that this is what has to be done.”

- **The presupposition trap.** Questions with hidden premises stop the soldier retreating from the parallel and leave no room for a tactical or intelligence explanation. The loaded words are the only ones the viewer keeps.
- **The combined effect.** From the operations room to a monstrous historical identity, set against calm balconies, the film fixes one conclusion: Israeli society has lost its humanity. In effect, that justifies hatred of Jews in Israel and around the world.

### 34. “Together we will win”

A lit sign on a Tel Aviv building, slowly coming into focus beside the Israeli flag.

- **A visual reveal.** The effort to read a blurred image traps attention. When it clears, a symbol of solidarity is received as evidence of shared guilt, in light of what the soldier says next.

### 35. Light and darkness

Throughout the film the interviewer is lit and his face is clear; the soldier is always in darkness.

- **Visual asymmetry.** The person in the light reads as the investigator and the truth; the person in shadow reads as a man confessing a crime. The IDF is in the dark.

### 36. The word genocide

The central exchange.

> **Interviewer:** You don’t think it’s genocide?
>
> **Soldier:** Yes! Really.
>
> **Soldier:** It’s deliberate fire, it’s deliberate! It’s deliberate!… You meant to kill these children.

- **Extreme escalation.** The existence of collateral damage is equated with deliberately murdering children. Self-defence, armed terror and evacuation efforts are deleted, and the most extreme legal term is placed straight into the viewer’s emotions.

### 37. “It’s fun”

Asked about a turning point, the soldier says: “It’s a hormonal rampage and you enjoy it… crazy feelings of pleasure… it’s fun!”

- **An attack on identity.** Behaviour under pressure is lifted to an identity of pleasure in suffering. Joining “fun” to a description of killing removes any chance of empathy for the soldiers.

### 38. The siren and the train

The memorial siren in Tel Aviv and people standing still on the road; a cut to the Tel Aviv Cinematheque with the caption “A tribute to Claude Lanzmann”, director of Shoah; a locomotive, railway tracks and smoke from a chimney; Netanyahu recalling the Holocaust; Yonit Levi reading the international charges of starvation and crimes against humanity.

- **Timeline collapse.** This is the film’s most sophisticated transition. Every sound and image of Holocaust memory is attached to present-day Gaza and to international arrest warrants. The Jewish state, using its own Holocaust symbols, is accused of committing a holocaust.

### 39. “Bibi’s department”

The soldier describes a department that tracks figures active in the international arena, thwarts petitions in The Hague through “dirt”, and gathers intelligence for the Prime Minister: “Bibi’s goal, the overriding goal, is to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

- **Overgeneralisation.** Israel’s legal and diplomatic defence is erased, and its intelligence system is reframed as a personal political arm built to sabotage peace. Not mentioned: that Gaza chose Hamas, which carried out a massacre, and that the Arab side refused peace at every opportunity since Israel’s founding.

### 40. The definition of terror

An old interview in which a young Netanyahu defines terror from his book: “the deliberate and systematic assault, murder, maiming and menacing of the innocent… for political ends.” Then a man hanging laundry, a shutter closing, and testimony about striking homes with children inside on a Friday evening.

- **A reversed equation.** The definition is set up so that the testimony that follows seems to fit Israel exactly. The leader’s own words are turned into a trap against him and against the state.

## 9. The ending

> Israel’s killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza is ongoing.
>
> The film’s closing caption

The film ends on the most extreme contrast it has prepared: from calm Tel Aviv nights to a father digging for his son in the ruins of Gaza.

### 41. Voices on the phone

Drawing in the notebook (the “Homeland” software), the soldier recalls intercepted calls from relatives in the ruins: “I heard their voices… crying… screaming… my mother is dead and the children…”

- **Auditory imprinting.** Screaming and crying act directly on the listener’s emotions, beyond critical thought. The monotonous drawing (“a call, a call, a call”) slides guilt into the unconscious. And again it is hearsay.

### 42. Tel Aviv lives, Gaza dies

Images of destruction in Gaza in October and November 2023. A man kneels, shouting for his son Said beneath the ruins, strikes with a hammer and weeps. The legs of children under rubble. A pale sky, passing aircraft, and the closing caption.

- **The final contrast.** After an hour of calm Tel Aviv nights (a sofa arranged, a woman running, a couple massaging knees), the film delivers the opposite. The caption fixes the message in the present, and the viewer is led to see Israeli society as a whole as a partner in an ongoing crime.

## What the film does not show

Against the film’s emotional force stand clear gaps in its evidence.

- **Hearsay, not observation.** The soldier who testifies about killings through the “Homeland” software and at food distribution says it himself: “I don’t know exactly… I heard their voices… I wasn’t there on the cameras… I never sat down at any stage to watch.”
- **Truth mixed with exaggeration.** Real information, strikes and the destruction of Hamas structures in which civilians are badly harmed, is mixed with cinematic metaphors and political-legal labels (“thwarting peace”, “genocide”, “heaps of bodies”). The flood of shock carries the viewer to accept the closing captions as a verdict without noticing the gaps inside the stories.
- **Who appears on screen.** Women, children and the elderly are almost never seen. The ruined streets of Gaza show mainly men and teenage boys.
- **One scene of bodies.** For all its claims, the film contains one scene of bodies under ruins: a row of some ten legs under a collapsed wall. Throughout the war, images from Gaza were broadcast and posted everywhere, including fabricated ones meant to shock. The film offers nothing comparable.
- **Bodies that cannot pile up.** The description of people shot at a distance falling “one on top of the other” breaks the laws of ballistics and of human behaviour. It is the point at which the narrative breaks.

## Conclusion

NAZA is a planned instrument of persuasion, not neutral documentation. Its release, closed screenings and heavy coverage with no way to watch, created a vacuum that viewers filled with fear and a sense of forbidden knowledge.

Inside the film, more than forty scenes each use a technique of influence: hypnotic language, deleted context, reframing, lit Tel Aviv balconies against descriptions of bombing in Gaza, a collapsed timeline and an implanted Holocaust analogy. All of them lead to one conclusion: that Israel is committing genocide.

Beside them stand the gaps: hearsay presented as fact, no visual evidence, women and children absent from the frame, and the physically impossible pile of bodies where the narrative breaks.

## Sources

Every article, statement and post this page draws on, oldest first. Titles are given in their original language.

- Deadline, Zac Ntim: [Former Israeli Prime Minister Takes Aim At Yuval Abraham And Rachel Szor's 'NAZA'](https://deadline.com/2026/09/naftali-bennett-yuval-abraham-rachel-szor-naza-1237098766/) (2026-09-11)
- X · Israel Defense Forces: [IDF first response to NAZA after Venice premiere](https://x.com/IDF/status/2098399911750389869) (2026-09-11)
- Quotidiano.net, Manuela Santacatterina: [Cos'è Naza, il film che svela l’orrore a Gaza](https://www.quotidiano.net/magazine/cinema-serie-tv/naza-il-film-che-svela-orrore-a-gaza-17e8cd10) (2026-09-12)
- Israel News Pulse, Jonathan Mimouni: [NAZA Fact Check: The Claims the Documentary Cannot Prove](https://israelnewspulse.com/naza-fact-checked/) (2026-09-13)
- X · Andrew Fox: [Reply to jury president's Zone of Interest comparison](https://x.com/Mr_Andrew_Fox/status/2099212319527956991) (2026-09-13)
- X · Avigdor Liberman: [X post on NAZA directors](https://x.com/AvigdorLiberman/status/2099077107963851144) (2026-09-13)
- X · Israel Defense Forces: [IDF: 500-civilian approval claim 'completely false'](https://x.com/IDF/status/2099241925848994269) (2026-09-13)
- Al-Monitor, Reuters / Maayan Lubell: [Netanyahu says Gaza documentary 'NAZA' is 'shocking incitement'](https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2026/09/netanyahu-says-gaza-documentary-naza-shocking-incitement) (2026-09-14)
- Elder of Ziyon, Elder of Ziyon (pseudonymous blogger): [What We Know About the NAZA Movie Already Discredits It](https://elderofziyon.substack.com/p/what-we-know-about-the-naza-movie) (2026-09-14)
- Haaretz, Raviv Drucker: [צפיתי בסרט נז"א. זה היה קשה מאוד, הזדעזעתי, אבל](https://www.haaretz.co.il/opinions/2026-09-14/ty-article-opinion/.highlight/000001a0-9b2e-dfa9-ada3-db6e79a80000) (2026-09-14)
- Il Foglio, Pierluigi Battista: [How ‘Fauda’ responds to ‘Naza’](https://www.ilfoglio.it/en/television/2026/09/14/news/how-fauda-responds-to-naza--407498) (2026-09-14)
- Israel Hayom, Amnon Lord: [הטעות שלישראל אסור לעשות עם הסרט נז"א](https://www.israelhayom.co.il/news/geopolitics/article/21418733) (2026-09-14)
- Israel Hayom: [הקצין באמ"ן מסביר את השקרים בסרט נז"א](https://www.israelhayom.co.il/news/trending-online/article/21422504) (2026-09-14)
- Jüdische Allgemeine, Sabine Brandes: [»Ritualmordlegende« - »Pflicht, Fragen zu stellen«: Israel streitet über »Naza«](https://www.juedische-allgemeine.de/israel/ritualmordlegende-pflicht-fragen-zu-stellen-israel-streitet-ueber-naza/) (2026-09-14)
- Kan News, Eran Sikurel et al.: [הרמטכ"ל נגד הסרט "נז"א": "עלילות דם ועיוות מכוון של המציאות"](https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/defense/1099258/) (2026-09-14)
- X · @MaxNordau (pseudonymous): [Timestamped summary of Raviv Drucker's Channel 13 interview with Yuval Abraham](https://x.com/MaxNordau/status/2099621814276124966) (2026-09-14)
- X · Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin: [IDF Spokesperson asks to view NAZA in full](https://x.com/IDF/status/2099482853423686025) (2026-09-14)
- X · John Spencer: [Collateral damage estimation is what the law requires](https://x.com/SpencerGuard/status/2099562673482658166) (2026-09-14)
- Ynet, Gal Ganot: [הרמטכ"ל יכנס דיון על הסרט נז"א: "לתקוף כדי להרוג 500 אזרחים? שקרי לחלוטין"](https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/bkapplrtzx) (2026-09-14)
- il Giornale, Fiamma Nirenstein: [Le verità tra film e realtà](https://www.ilgiornale.it/news/politica-internazionale/le-verita-tra-film-e-realta/) (2026-09-14)
- Arutz Sheva: [דרוקר מפתיע: "לא הייתי משדר את זה"](https://www.inn.co.il/news/706333) (2026-09-15)
- HonestReporting, Rachel O'Donoghue: [“NAZA”: A Record Venice Ovation, IDF Condemnation and a Genocide Fabrication](https://honestreporting.com/naza-a-record-venice-ovation-idf-condemnation-and-the-genocide-fabrication/) (2026-09-15)
- Il Riformista, Claudio Velardi: [Le lacrime per Naza e le ore dedicate a Fauda: a Venezia cala il sipario sulla recita, nel mondo arabo sono già all’episodio successivo della serie israeliana](https://www.ilriformista.it/le-lacrime-per-naza-e-le-ore-dedicate-a-fauda-a-venezia-cala-il-sipario-sulla-recita-nel-mondo-arabo-sono-gia-allepisodio-successivo-della-serie-israeliana-530479/) (2026-09-15)
- Israel Hayom, Ariel Bulshtein: [דעה | "נז"א" הוא לא קולנוע – הוא כתב אישום נגד ישראל](https://www.israelhayom.co.il/opinions/article/21429712) (2026-09-15)
- Jewish News, JN Reporter: [New documentary about IDF strikes in Gaza causes anger in Israel](https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/new-documentary-about-idf-strikes-in-gaza-causes-anger-in-israel/) (2026-09-15)
- Moked, Redazione: [Gerusalemme e la risposta tardiva a Naza](https://moked.it/2026/09/15/gerusalemme-e-la-risposta-tardiva-a-naza/) (2026-09-15)
- The Algemeiner: [Former Hamas Hostage Slams ‘NAZA’ Filmmakers for ‘Degrading’ IDF Soldiers ‘Who Fought to Bring Me Home’](https://www.algemeiner.com/2026/09/15/former-hamas-hostage-slams-naza-filmmakers-degrading-idf-soldiers-who-fought-bring-me-home/) (2026-09-15)
- The Jerusalem Post, Corinne Baum: [IDF calls NAZA 500-civilian strike claim 'completely false'](https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-908673) (2026-09-15)
- Walla! News, Amir Bohbot: [בצה"ל דוחים את טענות הסרט נז"א - ומבהירים: "שלמים עם התהליכים המבצעיים"](https://news.walla.co.il/item/3868020) (2026-09-15)
- X · Eylon Levy: [X post replying to Raviv Drucker](https://x.com/EylonALevy/status/2099837432141173165) (2026-09-15)
- X · Israel Katz: [X post on Rafah brigade commander strike](https://x.com/Israel_katz/status/2099955776622141611) (2026-09-15)
- X · Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs: [MFA: NAZA 'pure propaganda'](https://x.com/IsraelMFA/status/2099918779580821690) (2026-09-15)
- Ynet, Itamar Eichner, Tal Amodai: ["נז"א הצית את המדינה": הסרט השנוי במחלוקת בכותרות בעולם - וקו ההגנה של ישראל](https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/rk4ejmifmx) (2026-09-15)
- Il Foglio, Giulio Meotti: [La Naza dei cieli: storia di un massacro sventato](https://www.ilfoglio.it/esteri/2026/09/16/news/la-naza-dei-cieli-storia-di-un-massacro-sventato--407679) (2026-09-16)
- JNS, Jonathan S. Tobin: [The AI apocalypse and the ‘NAZA’ blood libels against Israel](https://www.jns.org/opinion/column/jonathan-s-tobin/the-ai-apocalypse-and-the-naza-blood-libels-against-israel) (2026-09-16)
- The Free Press, Haviv Rettig Gur: [Hold Your Applause for the New Gaza Documentary](https://www.thefp.com/p/haviv-rettig-gur-naza-israel-gaza-reporting) (2026-09-16)
- X · Prime Minister's Office: [PMO video: How 'Naza' manufactured a case](https://x.com/IsraeliPM/status/2100299036083229142) (2026-09-16)
- Ynet, Itamar Eichner: [ישראל נערכת לקרב בלימה מול היוצרים: "'נז"א' כואב במיוחד כי זה בא מבפנים"](https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/syyipz00yml) (2026-09-16)
- Channel 14, Ziv Shezo: [נז"א תגיע לאירופה - ובישראל דורשים: קיימו הקרנה מיידית](https://www.c14.co.il/article/1705801) (2026-09-17)
- GB News, Tzipi Hotovely: ['PROPAGANDA!' Israeli ambassador responds to Guardian's Gaza film NAZA amid UPROAR](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XIDAOkFrBU) (2026-09-17)
- Il Foglio, Giulio Meotti: [Se anche Hamas elogia “Naza”](https://www.ilfoglio.it/esteri/2026/09/17/news/se-anche-hamas-elogia-naza--407781) (2026-09-17)
- Israel Hayom, Nissan Strauchler: [התשובה של המומחית הבריטית לסרט נז"א: "מעוותים את דיני המלחמה"](https://www.israelhayom.co.il/news/world-news/europe/article/21448198) (2026-09-17)
- Israel National News, Dr. Avi Perry: [A poisoned lens, a predetermined verdict, and questionable evidence made to fit](https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/433331) (2026-09-17)
- Jüdische Allgemeine, Sabine Brandes (reporting Itamar Eichner's Ynet interview): [Kampfpilot weist Vorwürfe von »Naza« zurück](https://www.juedische-allgemeine.de/israel/kampfpilot-weist-vorwuerfe-von-naza-zurueck/) (2026-09-17)
- Mena-Watch, Michaela Dudley: [»NAZA«: Israel-Kritik hat ihren »Preis«](https://mena-watch.com/naza-israel-kritik-hat-ihren-preis/) (2026-09-17)
- Misgav Institute for National Security & Zionist Strategy, Prof. Kobi Michael: [The Film "NAZA" – Manipulation on Eight Levels](https://www.misgavins.org/en/michael-film-naza/) (2026-09-17)
- The Times of Israel, Sarit Zehavi: [What 'Naza' really means: The truth about collateral damage](https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-truth-about-naza-or-collateral-damage/) (2026-09-17)
- X · Ben Caspit: [X post on NAZA](https://x.com/BenCaspit/status/2100668281833009328) (2026-09-17)
- Israel Hayom, Dr. Michael Oren: [דעה | לא בבכי, בלחימה קשוחה: כך להגיב לסרט השקרים "נז"א"](https://www.israelhayom.co.il/news/geopolitics/article/21450982) (2026-09-18)
- Makor Rishon, Elchanan Shpeizer: [מג'נין ג'נין ועד נז"א: 80 אחוזים מהסרטים כאן לוקחים את אותו צד](https://www.makorrishon.co.il/news/geopolitics/article/371890) (2026-09-18)
- Reformatorisch Dagblad, Jeannette Gabay-Schoonderwoerd: [Waarom bekroonde documentaire NAZA in Israël zelf vooral op afwijzing stuit](https://www.rd.nl/a/waarom-bekroonde-documentaire-naza-in-israel-zelf-vooral-op-afwijzing-stuit) (2026-09-18)
- The Jerusalem Post, David Ben-Basat: [What NAZA leaves out about October 7 and Israel’s war in Gaza](https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-908910) (2026-09-18)
- Kan News: [ההאשמות בסרט והקצינים שהיו שם ואומרים: "לא היה ולא נברא"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FsIthx3LXg) (2026-09-19)
- Maariv, Prof. Aryeh Eldad: [סערת "נז"א": אפשר לחוות דעה על סרט גם בלי לצפות בו](https://www.maariv.co.il/news/opinions/article-1368604) (2026-09-19)
- Mena-Watch, Alexander Gruber: [»NAZA«: Wie ein Film Israel in die Nähe der Nazis rückt](https://mena-watch.com/naza-ein-film-rueckt-israel-in-die-naehe-der-nazis/) (2026-09-19)
- JNS, Adam Levick: [The premise of ‘NAZA’ doesn’t hold up](https://www.jns.org/opinion/adam-levick/the-premise-of-naza-doesnt-hold-up) (2026-09-20)
- Ynet / Yedioth Ahronoth, Ben-Dror Yemini: [לוקחים חלק בעלילה](https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/yokra14904372) (2026-09-21)
- 20il: [NAZA Fact Check: What the Evidence Actually Shows](https://www.20il.co.il/en/naza-documentary-fact-check/) (2026-09-22)
- Commentary, Seth Mandel: [NAZA Is a Jump-the-Shark Moment for Israel’s Critics](https://www.commentary.org/seth-mandel/naza-is-a-jump-the-shark-moment-for-israels-critics/) (2026-09-22)
- The Wall Street Journal, Omer Shem Tov: [Hostages Like Me Were Also 'NAZA'—Collateral Damage](https://www.wsj.com/opinion/hostages-like-me-were-also-nazacollateral-damage-7cfeb4aa) (2026-09-22)
- Mena-Watch, Sarit Zehavi: [Was »NAZA« über Kollateralschäden verschweigt](https://mena-watch.com/was-naza-verschweigt/) (2026-09-23)
- TheWrap, Shlomi Ben-Meir: ['NAZA' Claims About IDF Action in Gaza Deserve a Closer Look | Guest Column](https://www.yahoo.com/news/world/articles/naza-claims-idf-action-gaza-221115687.html) (2026-09-23)
- Haaretz, Prof. Danny Orbach: [עדויות מוטות ומצג שווא: מדוע "נז"א" חוצה את הגבול מעיתונות לתעמולה](https://www.haaretz.co.il/opinions/2026-09-24/ty-article-opinion/.premium/000001a0-d2c1-d4d3-a1b0-f3fbf1a90000) (2026-09-24)
- Walla! News, אלוף במיל' גיורא איילנד (Maj. Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland): [הסרט "נז"א" במבחן המציאות: האם צה"ל חרג מהדין?](https://www.walla.co.il/news/opinions/383955224) (2026-09-24)
- Il Foglio, Giulio Meotti: [Anatomia della perfetta operazione “Naza”. La zona di interesse di Israele](https://www.ilfoglio.it/gli-inserti-del-foglio-weekend/2026/09/26/news/anatomia-della-perfetta-operazione-naza-la-zona-di-interesse-di-israele--408754) (2026-09-26)
- Israel National News, Dr. Alex Grobman: [NAZA's allegation of a system: What the evidence really shows](https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/433694) (2026-09-27)
- The Times of Israel, Emanuel Fabian and Nurit Yohanan: [NAZA’s claims about IDF conduct in Gaza are grave. So are the film’s journalistic flaws](https://www.timesofisrael.com/nazas-claims-about-idf-conduct-in-gaza-are-grave-so-are-the-films-journalistic-flaws/) (2026-09-27)
- Yair Miron personal site: [אחת עשרה מניפולציות בסרט "נז"א"](https://www.matirasurim.com/media/yair-miron-naza-manipulations) (2026-09-27)
- Zman Yisrael, Emanuel Fabian, Nurit Yohanan: [הטענות של הסרט "נז"א" נגד צה"ל חמורות. כך גם הכשלים העיתונאיים שלו](https://www.zman.co.il/727990/) (2026-09-27)
- taz, Tim Caspar Boehme: [Debatte um Dokumentarfilm „Naza“: Warum tut ihr das?](https://taz.de/Debatte-um-Dokumentarfilm-Naza/!6211185/) (2026-09-27)
- JNS, Amelie Botbol: ['NAZA' documentary fails to show IDF efforts to prevent civilian casualties, former officer says](https://www.jns.org/news/israel-news/naza-documentary-fails-to-show-idf-efforts-to-prevent-civilian-casualties-former-officer-says) (2026-09-28)
- The Jerusalem Post, Yisrael Medad: [NAZA and the rising campaign to demonize Israel](https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-909943) (2026-09-28)
- The Jerusalem Post, Ari Tatarka: ['NAZA' film at Venice Festival exposes the IDF's struggle to defend its story](https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-909844) (2026-09-28)
- X · Yoseph Haddad: [No such 500 event exists](https://x.com/YosephHaddad/status/2104550530638889184) (2026-09-28)
- Enfoque Judío, Elías Cohen: [NAZA: ¿Dónde termina el documental y comienza el libelo?](https://enfoquejudio.es/naza-donde-termina-el-documental-y-comienza-el-libelo/) (2026-09-30)
- Israel Hayom, Yishai Kitchels: [צפיתי ב80 הדקות של "נז"א" כדי שלא תצטרכו: כך נראית אג'נדה חד צדדית ומקוממת](https://www.israelhayom.co.il/culture/films/article/21518084) (2026-09-30)
- Jüdische Allgemeine, Sophie Albers Ben Chamo: [»NAZA«: Die Banalität der Propaganda](https://www.juedische-allgemeine.de/kultur/die-banalitaet-der-propaganda/) (2026-09-30)
- The Atlantic, Gal Beckerman: [The Missed Opportunity of NAZA](https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/2026/09/missed-opportunity-documentary-movie-naza/688832/) (2026-09-30)
- AJC: [NAZA: What to Know About the Controversial Gaza Documentary](https://www.ajc.org/news/naza-what-to-know-about-the-controversial-gaza-documentary) (2026-10-01)
- IDF Spokesperson press mailing, IDF Spokesperson's Unit: [תגובת דובר צה"ל לסרט 'נז"א'](https://idfanc.activetrail.biz/ANC2367) (2026-10-01)
- IDF Spokesperson's Unit: [IDF Response to the Film "NAZA" (10-page English document)](https://cdn-media.web-view.net/i/ww3xwccasc/________________________16.pdf) (2026-10-01)
- Il Foglio, Mariarosa Mancuso: [Fonti anonime ma gli spettatori applaudono sulla fiducia. “Naza” continua](https://www.ilfoglio.it/cinema/2026/10/01/news/fonti-anonime-ma-gli-spettatori-applaudono-sulla-fiducia-naza-continua--409226) (2026-10-01)
- Israel Hayom, Lilach Shoval: [סעיף אחר סעיף: צה"ל מפרק את טענות הסרט "נז"א"](https://www.israelhayom.co.il/news/defense/article/21528303) (2026-10-01)
- JNS, Fiamma Nirenstein: [‘NAZA’ turns anti-Israel propaganda into box-office success](https://www.jns.org/opinion/column/fiamma-nirenstein/naza-turns-anti-israel-propaganda-into-box-office-success) (2026-10-01)
- Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Deborah Danan: [In its first detailed response to ‘NAZA’ documentary, IDF claims ‘fundamental errors’](https://www.jta.org/2026/10/01/israel/in-its-first-detailed-response-to-naza-documentary-idf-claims-fundamental-errors) (2026-10-01)
- Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Richard C. Schneider: [Führt Israel den Krieg wie ein Videospiel? Was der Film «Naza» zeigt und was nicht](https://www.nzz.ch/feuilleton/kino-fernsehen-streaming/fuehrt-israel-den-krieg-wie-ein-videospiel-was-naza-zeigt-und-was-nicht-ld.10026098) (2026-10-01)
- Perlentaucher, Perlentaucher Efeu editors: [Efeu - Die Kulturrundschau vom 01.10.2026: NAZA. Peyman Engel und Menasse.](https://www.perlentaucher.de/efeu/2026-10-01.html) (2026-10-01)
- The Algemeiner: [‘Misrepresented and Manipulative Depiction of Reality’: IDF Issues Detailed Response to ‘NAZA’ Documentary](https://www.algemeiner.com/2026/10/01/misrepresented-and-manipulative-depiction-of-reality-idf-issues-detailed-response-to-naza-documentary/) (2026-10-01)
- The Times of Israel, Emanuel Fabian: ['Distorted, misleading, and disingenuous': IDF publishes full response to 'NAZA' film](https://www.timesofisrael.com/distorted-misleading-and-disingenuous-idf-publishes-full-response-to-naza-film/) (2026-10-01)
- Washington Examiner, Arie Blitz: [Before you applaud NAZA: A standing ovation is not proof of a war crime](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op-eds/4748795/naza-documentary-venice-fact-check/) (2026-10-01)
- Ynet, Elisha Ben Kimon: [כמעט חודש אחרי הסערה, צה"ל מגיב על הסרט נז"א: "תמונה מעוותת ומניפולטיבית"](https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/sktyztoczg) (2026-10-01)
- Il Foglio, Giuliano Ferrara: [Il documento dell’Idf su Gaza, che smonta il facilismo frivolo e l’ambiguità morale di “Naza”, è un testo di dolorosa serietà](https://www.ilfoglio.it/esteri/2026/10/02/news/il-documento-dellidf-su-gaza-che-smonta-il-facilismo-frivolo-e-lambiguita-morale-di-naza-e-un-testo-di-dolorosa-serieta--409416) (2026-10-02)
- X · Andrew Fox: [The occupancy map in NAZA](https://x.com/Mr_Andrew_Fox/status/2106106004370849906) (2026-10-02)
- il Giornale, Fiamma Nirenstein: [Il pubblico italiano pazzo per “Naza”. E le sue bugie antisemite](https://www.ilgiornale.it/news/guerra/il-pubblico-italiano-pazzo-per-naza-e-le-sue-bugie-antisemite/) (2026-10-02)
- Libero Quotidiano, Giovanni Longoni: [Guardate "Naza". Ma non cadete in trappola](https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news/esteri/49285630/guardate-naza-ma-non-cadete-in-trappola/) (2026-10-03)
- X · John Spencer: [Worse than Hamas propaganda](https://x.com/SpencerGuard/status/2106840130220699887) (2026-10-04)
- X · Micha Danzig: [Genocidal armies don't count collateral damage](https://x.com/DanzigMD/status/2106853320124244353) (2026-10-04)
- yairmiron.com, Yair Miron: [I Watched NAZA in Full. Here Are Eleven Ways It Misleads Viewers.](https://www.yairmiron.com/media/yair-miron-naza-manipulations-en) (2026-10-04)
- J. The Jewish News of Northern California, Oleg Ivanov and Dr. Mike Harris: [‘NAZA’ viciously misrepresents Israel’s military](https://jweekly.com/2026/10/05/naza-viciously-misrepresents-israels-military/) (2026-10-05)
- Aish.com, Dr. Yvette Alt Miller: [NAZA's Biggest Claims, and Why the IDF Says They're Wrong](https://aish.com/nazas-biggest-claims-and-why-the-idf-says-theyre-wrong/) (2026-10-06)
- Associated Press: [Israeli documentary 'NAZA' opens in the US, reigniting debate over the war in Gaza](https://www.ksat.com/news/politics/2026/10/06/israeli-documentary-naza-opens-in-the-us-reigniting-debate-over-the-war-in-gaza/) (2026-10-06)
- Breitbart: [EXCLUSIVE -- Urban Warfare Expert: Gaza 'Genocide' Libel Is 'Greatest Lie'](https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2026/10/07/exclusive-urban-warfare-expert-john-spencer-gaza-genocide-libel-against-israel-is-greatest-lie-in-modern-history/) (2026-10-07)
- Fox News Digital, Rachel Wolf: ['I am Omer': Former Hamas hostage reflects on surviving 505 harrowing days in captivity](https://www.foxnews.com/media/i-am-omer-former-hamas-hostage-reflects-surviving-505-harrowing-days-captivity) (2026-10-07)
- Il Foglio, Sharon Nizza: [Alla ricerca di qualche verità. Colloquio con il giornalista Raviv Drucker](https://www.ilfoglio.it/esteri/2026/10/07/news/alla-ricerca-di-qualche-verita--409787) (2026-10-07)
- The Times of Israel, Avi Lewis: [The airstrikes we canceled: What NAZA leaves out](https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/i-worked-with-the-real-naza-heres-what-the-film-gets-wrong/) (2026-10-07)
- Agenzia Nova: [Peled: "Rapporto solido tra Israele e Italia ma serve un maggiore sostegno dell'opinione pubblica"](https://www.agenzianova.com/news/peled-rapporto-solido-tra-israele-e-italia-ma-serve-un-maggiore-sostegno-dellopinione-pubblica/) (2026-10-08)
- HonestReporting, Rachel O'Donoghue: [The Real “NAZA”: Edited Quotes, Mystery ICC Cases & Unexplained Gaza Footage](https://honestreporting.com/the-real-naza-edited-quotes-mystery-icc-cases-unexplained-gaza-footage/) (2026-10-08)
- Jewish Journal, Alan Zeitlin: [‘NAZA’ Proves Nada](https://jewishjournal.com/culture/arts/film/392993/naza-proves-nada/) (2026-10-08)
- The Filitti Brief, Gerard Filitti: [Before the Missile Flies: How the United States Picks Targets, Weighs Civilian Harm, and Answers for Mistakes](https://gerardfilitti.substack.com/p/before-the-missile-flies-how-the) (2026-10-08)
- The Jewish Chronicle, Philipp Peyman Engel: [I’ve seen Naza and it’s a nasty piece of propaganda](https://www.thejc.com/opinion/ive-seen-naza-and-its-a-nasty-piece-of-propaganda-umbuoml4) (2026-10-08)
- Walla! News, Baruch Kra: [יש עדויות, אין תחקיר: "נז"א" נכשל עיתונאית, אבל אסור לרדוף את יוצריו](https://www.walla.co.il/news/opinions/383956783) (2026-10-08)
- Il Foglio, Michele Silenzi: [Non serve dimostrare i fatti, basta una realtà ricostruita. Oltre Naza](https://www.ilfoglio.it/societa/2026/10/10/news/non-serve-dimostrare-i-fatti-basta-una-realta-ricostruita-oltre-naza--410157) (2026-10-10)
- Jüdische Allgemeine, Philipp Peyman Engel: [Ich habe »Naza« gesehen, und es ist ein übles Stück Propaganda](https://www.juedische-allgemeine.de/meinung/ich-habe-naza-gesehen-und-es-ist-ein-uebles-stueck-propaganda/) (2026-10-10)
- Tribune Juive, Tribune Juive (unsigned): [NAZA : Le cinéma au service de la propagande](https://www.tribunejuive.info/2026/10/13/naza-le-cinema-au-service-de-la-propagande/) (2026-10-13)
- X · Embassy of Israel in France: [Le film « Naza » présente une réalité déformée, trompeuse et malhonnête.](https://x.com/IsraelenFrance/status/2110019413374026017) (2026-10-13)
- 21 News, Harrison du Bus: [Documentaire NAZA : Tsahal dénonce une « réalité déformée, trompeuse et malhonnête »](https://www.21news.be/documentaire-naza-tsahal-denonce-une-realite-deformee-trompeuse-et-malhonnete/) (2026-10-14)
- X · Andrew Fox: [NAZA proves the IDF did collateral damage estimates](https://x.com/Mr_Andrew_Fox/status/2110291461115613334) (2026-10-14)
- X · Salo Aizenberg: [Collateral damage skewed to fighting-age men](https://x.com/Aizenberg55/status/2110400898870726936) (2026-10-14)
- The Times of Israel Blogs, Dinah Bucholz: [The "NAZA" Saga](https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-naza-saga/) (2026-10-15)
- Alliance, Lou Helwaser and 28 signatories (incl. Richard Berry, Michel Boujenah, Élie Chouraqui, Éric Naulleau, Rachel Khan, Avi Pazner, Nathalie Cohen-Beizermann): [Tribune. Une rescapée de la Shoah et vingt-huit personnalités contre le film NAZA](https://www1.alliancefr.com/actualites/tribune-une-rescapee-de-la-shoah-et-vingt-huit-personnalites-contre-le-film-naza-6135461) (2026-10-16)
- X · Salo Aizenberg: [Was Israel Justified in Bombing Hamas Combatants in Their Homes?](https://x.com/Aizenberg55/status/2111855060481081598) (2026-10-18)
- The Jewish Chronicle, John Nathan: [NAZA review: ‘This is what happens when artists and activists do the work of objective journalists’ ★★](https://www.thejc.com/life/film/naza-review-this-is-what-happens-when-artists-and-activists-do-the-work-of-objective-journalists-gnops8j4) (2026-10-19)
- X · Salo Aizenberg: [NAZA: A Propaganda Film Masquerading as an Investigation of the Gaza War](https://x.com/Aizenberg55/status/2112236420006031570) (2026-10-19)
- Aurora, Leonardo Rubinsky: [Graves acusaciones sin pruebas: película NAZA](https://www.aurora-israel.co.il/naza-acusaciones-israel-pruebas-verificables/) (2026-10-25)
- Report24, Florian Machl: [Film NAZA: Hasspropaganda gegen Israel auf Basis anonymer, nicht überprüfbarer Aussagen](https://report24.news/film-naza-hasspropaganda-gegen-israel-auf-basis-anonymer-nicht-ueberpruefbarer-aussagen/) (2026-10-28)
- The Wall Street Journal, Kyle Smith: ['NAZA' Has Nada on Israel](https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/naza-has-nada-on-israel-33203a03) (2026-11-02)