The Israeli Film Directors Pushing for a Reckoning in Their Home Country

From the New York Times, I'm Rachel. Abrams and this is the daily. >> The special jury prize goes to Naza by. Yuval Abraham and Rachel Sizor. Documentary Naza received widespread. acclaim when it premiered last month at. the Venice Film Festival. It won a top. prize and it got a record-breaking. standing [music] ovation for 25 minutes.

But reception for the film in Israel. could not be more different. [music]. The two Israeli directors are being. accused of damaging Israel's reputation. in the world and of betraying their own. country. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin.

Netanyahu has said that he'd propose. legislation that could revoke the. filmmaker citizenship. All of this despite the fact that the. film has not been released in Israel. [music] Naza investigates the methods. that the Israeli army used in Gaza in. the aftermath of the Hamasled attacks on.

October 7th. [music]. From dark rooftops [music] in Tel Aviv, the film features testimony from 24. anonymous military intelligence officers. and soldiers. >> Okay, they deserve it. [music] They discussed. both the military policies that led to. the killing of thousands of Palestinian. civilians [music] in Gaza and their part. in it. The Israeli military has pushed. back [music] on the film, saying that it.

misrepresents its efforts to avoid. harming civilians. And so today, we. speak to the directors of Naza, Yuval. Abraham, and Rachel Shore about their. film and about how they're pushing for a. reckoning in their home country. It's Monday, October 12th. Rachel Shore, Yval Abraham, welcome to. the Daily. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I think it's sort of fair to say that. the two of you are experiencing some.

extremes. Your film Nazak got a standing. ovation. Actually, it was a. record-breaking standing ovation at the. Venice Film Festival. And at the same. time, the film, even though most. Israelis have not seen it because it. hasn't been released there, has inspired. a lot of anger back in Israel. Rachel, for example, I understand that there. have been protesters outside of your. family's house. Yeah. So, I just want to. ask you guys both just how you're doing, how you're feeling in this moment. >> Yeah, it's been intense. The response. has been very aggressive towards the.

film. You know, the demonstrations next. to my parents house were calling to hang. us like a lot a lot of violence towards. us. Mhm. >> But I think we also feel that it at. least also create some sort of. conversation about what we have done and. doing in Gaza because for the last 3. years there hasn't been any conversation. about this. And just to say that we made. this film in Hebrew with testimonies of. the soldiers because we want to reach. the Israeli society. >> Yeah, I agree. I mean that's what I try.

to hold on to as some kind of meaning in. all of this that in as Rachel was saying. in the conversations that have now been. sparked as a result of the film. Mhm. >> And I think, you know, part of the. reason why we we made this film is to. try to make sense of the extremely large. number of civilians that were killed by. our country, by Israel in Gaza. But. yeah, it's not an easy situation. I. mean, we want to go back home to Israel, which is our home, but we can't go back. Netanyao just few days ago said that our. film is like ballistic missiles being.

targeted at Israel. >> I mean, there's a total atmosphere of. incitement. The death threats have been. so many that people who love us like our. parents, our friends, everyone is. telling us don't don't come back. Like. it's not it's not safe for you right now. to go back. >> I want to talk about the film that has. inspired all of this. Now. >> the premise of the film, the way you. actually made it is actually kind of.

simple. It's you, Yuval, on rooftops in. Tel Aviv at night talking to 24. different Israeli intelligence officers. and soldiers about the war in Gaza. [music]. Right. >> And the conversations, if I may, seem to. be really about two things. On the one. hand, they are about the casualties, the. civilian casualties in Gaza and the. tools that the IDF uses such as AI and. mass surveillance. But the film is also. very much about how these folks that are.

talking to you are explaining and. justifying what they have done both to. you and also it feels like to themselves. and I think it'll be helpful if we can. start with perhaps you've all explaining. the title of this film which is NAZA. Can you just walk us through what NAZA. means? >> Naza stands for Nzakagavi. These are two. words in Hebrew that can be translated. as collateral damage in English or. incidental damage. The way in which. Israeli intelligence officers use this.

term is to indicate the number of. civilians that they expect will be. harmed at a particular air strike. It's. like a euphemism. It's a substitute for. saying human beings. >> Mhm. So if an air strike has an. anticipated number of 15 civilian. casualties, meaning 15, you know, women, men, children who are not the target of. the strike, but the army knows it will. likely kill them or harm them, then they. use the word NAZA. They use this word. collateral damage. So they won't say 15.

men, women, children. They say 15 Naza. or 20 Naza. >> The word, as you mentioned, is. euphemistic, and we're going to get into. what points your film makes about that. word. I I want to just talk first about. the people in the movie. Can you just. tell us a little bit more about who. these 24 people are and the roles that. they played? >> Of course. So, these are 24 Israeli. intelligence officers and soldiers, all. of whom were involved in either the mass. surveillance or the remote killing of. Palestinians in Gaza.

>> They have varying roles like different. degrees of seniority and different roles. within the army. Most of them belong to. the so-called Israeli intelligence. community. Just to be very clear, these. are not folks who are mostly in Gaza. These are folks who are operating for. the military from within Israel. >> Yes. And these are individuals who. generally speaking come from upper. middle upper class, relatively good. education. Many of them are secular. They don't necessarily belong to the.

kind of families who would vote for. Netanyahu or for Ben or for Smootrich. Ben Gavir and Smotrich of course are. right-wing Israeli politicians just to. say. >> yes absolutely so these are individuals. who are part of Israel's liberal elites. that is the kind of profile I would say. of the people who are doing this remote. surveillance and remote killing. >> and a lot of these soldiers officers are. considered leftist and you can connect. it to Tel Aviv which is a city that is.

considered as the liberal capital of. Israel and as you in the film actually. in the heart of the city there's the. main headquarters of the army so some of. these operations are actually being. operated from there. >> and Tel Aviv is only 40 miles away from. Gaza but you can almost not tell that. these things are happening from that. city. >> I want to get to the revelations in the. film so let's talk about what the film.

actually revealed what these. conversations revealed to you about how. the Israeli army targeted members of. Hamas in Gaza after the October 7th. attacks on Israelis by Hamas. >> Well, it's a film packed with. revelations, but I think one is the the. way in which the targeting systems that. were used by Israeli intelligence to. look for these Hamas members, specifically looked for them inside. private houses. >> Mhm. And you know when you want to bomb.

so many targets, houses are a very. convenient place because people come. back home to sleep in their house. Mhm. [clears throat]. One officer describes a system called. Where is Daddy. >> which spied on the family members of. these targets through mass surveillance. technology and waited to get signals or. alerts that they are coming back to. their houses. >> Mhm.

>> And it's important to note these are not. houses where military activity had to be. taking place. On the contrary, so it was. much more difficult to find Hamas. members when they were engaged in. military activity or even when they were. just walking around. There was something. about waiting for the individual to come. home when they are sleeping at night. which was just easier. And to me, this. decision to bomb people in their houses. is part of the reason why we saw. thousands of Palestinian families being.

just just killed, wiped out, multiple. generations. the babies, the toddlers, the children, the women. I mean, the the. majority of them were killed inside. residential buildings. >> The reason why I think this moment stood. out to me, this particular revelation. was because it sort of complicated the. narrative that you often hear from. Israel that Hamas uses human shields and. operates out of civilian infrastructure. like hospitals and and schools for. instance. And your film does not dispute. that, just to be very clear. But the.

point that it is making is that the IDF. targeted people in their homes because. that is where they could find them. You. know, you they would go home and put. their cell phone next to their bed and. if the IDF was tracking the cell phone. then it would know where this person was. and it was not necessarily as you said. because Hamas was operating out of that. house and so targeting the person in. their house often meant killing a. person's family and in that way it. complicates Hamas using human shields. Yes, these buildings were not being.

bombed because there was Hamas military. activity happening from those buildings. So, it wasn't as if someone was, you. know, launching rockets or a sniper. sitting on the roof. It's just easy to. get them in their houses. They go home. to sleep. And we designed a system. predicated on mass surveillance that. routinely and systematically on a. massive scale marks those places, those. private houses as a target. And you. know, we have this image of an. intelligence officer sitting looking at. the screen with air conditioner in the. room and and not really knowing what.

they're doing, but they actually opening. the phone of the targets or actually. also of their family members and they. can hear what's happening inside the. house. >> One of the soldiers described they would. actually hear what's happening before. and then also what's happening after. they bomb. They would hear a conversation between a.

a couple, a baby crying. >> Were you surprised at that level of. surveillance, at that level of sort of. intimacy that the film claims to be. happening? >> Yeah, I think it was it was surprising. because it kind of breaks this image. that you have of how much the soldiers. know before and after they bomb and the. families. The film makes some claims. about how the Israeli military uses AI. Uval, you have been writing about the. war since it began as a journalist. You.

were among the first journalists to. write about the use of AI. And I wonder. you all if you just want to explain that. a little bit. >> Yes. So the way it worked according to. sources that we've spoken with is that. the army had a group of individuals that. they believed were part of the Hamas. military wing and then they had a. machine learning algorithm that kind of. learned the way in which the phones of. these individuals behaved and identified. identifying features. So it could be for.

example, you know, other people are. saving them on their contact lists as. Hamas members or these are phones that. are often in the vicinity of Hamas. training compounds or these are phones. that repeatedly change their phone. number because that's how militants may. operate. And then it scanned the phones. of almost every single person in Gaza. who has a phone and it gave them a. rating based on how similar their phone. patterns were to that existing group of.

people who were identified as as Hamas. and PIJ members by Israeli intelligence. And what sources tell us in the film is. that this AI based list of of Hamas. members in certain areas of the military. was used without needing to verify it. further. So it was used as like a sole. incriminator even though the people. designing it and the military knew that. it had an error rate. >> But you know to to me the main issue. here with AI is not the mistakes. M.

>> I think the main issue with AI is the. scale that it enables. When you have AI. that can just mark, you know, tens of. thousands of so-called targets, junior. targets, that's nobody in the army. probably even remembers what their names. are and instead of spending, you know, an hour in order to bomb one house, you. can designate dozens of houses for. bombing with little human involvement. One of the claims in the movie that has.

gotten a lot of attention and criticism. is this claim for one officer in. particular that one strike on a Hamas. target was approved with the knowledge. that as many as 500 civilians could be. killed or injured. The Times has. reported before my colleagues here at. the paper have reported on how the. Israeli military has loosened its. restrictions on how many civilians can. be endangered in a specific attack. And. we have reported that in certain. instances approval has been given to.

kill or injure more than a hundred. people. But 500 as stated in your film. by this one person goes farther than. what the New York Times has reported. It's also something that the IDF we. should note has specifically disputed. and I just want to understand from you. both how did you corroborate that. specific claim from this person? This. this is a film that was done in. collaboration with the Guardian with the. investigations desk at the Guardian. We. would have not put in this testimony of. that soldier if we were not fully.

confident that it's true and if we did. not have and we do have multiple other. sources who have confirmed that number. And we also have specity that we've just. not made public yet about when that. strike took place, where it took place. We we we understand it's an explosive. claim and and the fact that there is, you know, one person in the film. speaking about it. Uh it does not mean. that it has not been, you know, verified.

by by by multiple people that we've. spoken with. >> I guess what I'm really getting at is if. you did all this work to corroborate. such an incendiary claim, if you had. other people telling you the same thing, why not put an indication of that. homework in the film? because there are. a lot of people that you probably want. to reach with this movie who are going. to look for any reason to dismiss the. claims in this film and I wonder if you. think that like in hindsight perhaps it. just would have helped make people more. receptive to what you were trying to.

tell them. >> Uh no I think that the film makes it. case very very convincingly and the film. has a kind of language as well. I mean. there's no narration in the film. Mhm. >> I mean it's also a work of cinema and as. a device we don't it doesn't use that. you know uh disclaim we have four. sources disclaim which is a very. journalistic device that I do use often. when I write an investigative story uh. in in written text but all I can say is. that we are very confident of course.

people can always pick and choose what. to focus on. Sure, of course. >> But but I think a good faith person who. listens to the film should feel that it. is bulletproof. And as I said before, the claims that are made in the film are. claims that we we we have verified from. from multiple sources. >> Youval, did you go to the IDF with these. claims before the film came out, before. coming out with the movie? >> We went to the IDF over three years with. um we've written, as I said, over a.

dozen articles. um about about the. Israeli military's firing policies about. uh the way in which they use technology. and surveillance technology and we we we. went we approached them for comment. every single time and the film reflects. the the gist of you know the IDF and the. the Israeli government's position with. regards to this uh through through. Netanyahu. I mean we we juxtapose we. interweave Netanyahu throughout the film. speaking defending the Israeli bombing.

campaign. Um and we Yep. That's that's. there. Yeah. [music]. [music] In public statements the Israeli. military has said that the film presents. quote a distorted misleading and. disingenuous picture. It says that the. army and its commanders devote quote. exceptional effort and detail end quote. into assessing and trying to mitigate. harm to civilians while fighting Hamas,

including by cancelling [music] planned. attacks. The military also says that legal. advisers review proposed air strikes to. ensure that they comply with. international law. Any violations, it. [music] says, are investigated. After [music] the break, we speak with. Uval and Rachel about the psychological. impact of the war on the officers and. the soldiers who appear in the film. [music]. We'll be right back.

These officers, at least to me, it felt. like they were really grappling with the. role that they were playing in the war. And and one thing that comes across. really strongly is the distance, right? the distance between the people in the. film and the actual act of killing. And. I wonder if you both feel like one of. the reasons why that kind of distance. developed or was allowed to develop at. least initially was because of how. horrendous the October 7th attacks were,

the taking of the hostages who were not. released for a very long time. We know. of course that that created this huge. psychological trauma in Israeli society. And I just sort of wonder like how that. affected the mindset of the people you. spoke with when they first entered the. war. >> Yeah, absolutely. Of course, it had a. huge effect. It's a huge trauma for. Israeli society. The massacre was. horrific. There was a lot of anger.

>> There are soldiers in the film saying. how, you know, how they felt after the. October 7th attacks and need to go to. the army and need to do something. Of. course, there is a context of trauma. I. mean, there are people that I know that. were killed and murdered on that day on. October the 7th. It cannot it does not. justify the raising down of entire. cities in Gaza to the grounds. Massacres.

that have happened again and again at. food sites. The shooting of unarmed. civilians that are trying to go back to. their destroyed neighborhoods. The. murder of so many people. Like the. killing of more than 73,000 people, most. of them civilians. And I think to me. there's always this fine line between. context and justification, right? Because context is is not justification. Just like we say the same thing about. October the 7th. It's it's completely. unjustified. Of course, you can talk. about context. You can talk about Gaza. being under siege and you can talk about.

Palestinians living under Israeli. occupation without estate for for but. none of that justifies a massacre of. civilians, the killing of people dancing. at a party, the kidnapping of children. It's horrific. None of us should accept. something like that. So, we should be. careful in this line between context and. justification. And we should always be. careful when speaking about any crime, whether it was committed against. Palestinians or against Israelis. I. wonder how you felt their mindset. changed as the war went on when they got. a little bit of at least in terms of.

time distance from the October 7th. attack. Can you just describe a little. bit how people may have changed their. point of view about the civilian. casualties or their attitude towards. civilian casualties in Gaza? Well, I think the people that we've. spoken with obviously changed their. attitude over time because they came in. and they slowly realized, you know, okay, we came into the military after. October the 7th, but we are now involved. in very, very severe crimes. There is. this moment in the film where one of the.

officers says, I'm focused on this. individual that I want to kill inside. the house, >> and I don't think about anything that. happens on the way. And there's a moment. where he says, "But actually we we know. that these children are there. We know. that they are going to be killed." It it. is intentional. And there was a moment. when when he just sort of realized that.

>> he's an officer who who says he believes. he took a part in a genocide. coming from the perspective of an. intelligence officer that works inside. this framework of targets and collateral. damage. I think a lot of them said, well, look, we're not saying that the. civilians are the target, but the end. result is going to be the same end. result. It's the calculated and. anticipated killing of countless.

civilians of entire families. And we. should say that Israel of course has. vigorously denied any claims and. accusations of genocide. Rachel, you. were the cinematographer on this film. Just visually, how did you think about. how to underscore the idea of distance. in the shots that you showed from daily. activity in Tel Aviv? >> Yeah. So, so basically what you see in. the film in between the interviews is uh. you look inside people's apartment, you.

see the life of Tel Aviv, inside the the. apartments. And I think one of the. things that we we decided to concentrate. on and to show is is also something that. was very very strong in the Israeli. society after the the 7th of October and. also before which is watching the news. at 8:00. It's like some sort of of a. ritual. Everybody sits and watch the the. news and the channel that you see that. most of the people are watching. It's. the mainstream media and also you you. hear a bit the way they're describing. what Israel is is doing in Gaza and and.

they use words like terror targets. The. words they use are also showing some. sort of of a distance. So I think that. was also yeah part of the choice of of. focusing on on the life of people in. their apartments. Rachel, I want to ask. one last thing about the the look and. feel of the film. As we had already. mentioned, it is mostly shot with Yuvall. speaking to your sources on rooftops in. Tel Aviv, but there's one scene from. Gaza, really one moment at the end of.

the film. And to the point about trying. to combat the dehumanization of. Palestinians, that's that's the work. you're trying to do here. I'm would love. to hear about how you thought about how. to use footage from Gaza specifically. that the decision to use it so sparingly. and only at the end of the movie. We just couldn't take the risk of people. finishing the film and not understanding. the full gravity of of what is being. said. It's not some sort of a reflection. film of soldiers talking from their.

memories far away. I mean these things. are still happening now. So I think we. just it was important for us to include. it and to make sure that each viewer. that will finish the film will see the. the result of of all the systems of. killing that were described throughout. the film. >> The killing in Gaza continued and. continued for for two years up up until. the ceasefire of October 2025. And to. some degree it is still continuing to. this day that there's been over a. thousand Palestinians killed since that. ceasefire. One person in the film actually compares.

what he has done to the Nazis. And I I. want to focus on this for a second. because that is such an inflammatory. thing for an Israeli to say. And I I I'm. just sort of curious about your choice. to include it. >> Yeah. He wasn't the only one, by the. way, who says that they thought about. they thought about the Second World War. and they and they thought about the. genocide of the Jewish people. And he. described growing up, you know, in the. Israeli education system and thinking. about the perpetrators of the Holocaust.

and the perpetrators of crimes as as. pure evil. And he could not understand. how one would do it. And he says in the. film, well, you know, I feel like I have. I'm paraphrasing a little bit, but he. says, I I have a better understanding. now of the role of the perpetrator. And. I think that, you know, this is not at. all like it's not to make a simplistic. comparison. I don't think there is any. comparison between the Holocaust and. what happened in Gaza. I I don't. But I. do think that there is an importance. there of thinking about again without.

making a simplistic comparison without. saying that it's the same. It's not the. same. But there are common patterns of. dehumanization as the soldier was saying. there are things that we can learn about. being a perpetrator and understanding. that better in order to prevent crimes. from recurring in the future which I. feel are important. The way I kind of. looked at it was that we're in this. moment right now where the world, a lot. of the world has this incredibly. negative view of Israel. Anti-semitism. is on the rise. Many Israelis feel like. they are in this existential battle for.

survival. I wonder how you feel about. this larger criticism that this movie. could be seized on by people who are. interested in talking about things. completely irrelevant to what the film. is actually talking about. that it. basically could feed anti-semitism is I. think sort of the thing that's being. unspoken here. >> I am terrified of anti-semitism. It is. on the rise. You're absolutely right. There are horrible bad faith actors on. the right, but also on the left. And I. hear that and I'm not trying to dismiss. that at all, Rachel. Really? But I think.

at the same time, I will say that I. don't think that should stop us from. being truthful and factual. So I think. what are we saying here? that we cannot. report about these facts because they. you know it it may increase. anti-semitism. There's a responsibility. to be very clear to oppose anti-semitism. completely. It's appalling but that. cannot seep into not being truthful and. factual as a journalist just as by the. way you mentioned October the 7th. Imagine someone saying, "Well, if if we. report about the atrocities that Hamas.

has committed, and they have committed. horrible atrocities, the massacre, the. kidnapping of children, by reporting on. that, by journalists doing their work. and reporting on that, they would be. making the Israeli response in Gaza much. more lethal, much more vengeful. They. will we just as journalists, we just. need to be truthful to reality and we. should take into consideration into. account what you're saying. We shouldn't. dismiss it, but I think that is our our. role. You both at this point are very. recognizable. You mentioned that you're. not in Israel right now, but you hope to.

go back. Obviously, there are these very. looming safety concerns, but I would. imagine that like walking down the. street, people can spot you. People can. say things to you. If you're talking. about wanting to go back at some point, what do you imagine your life to be. like? Just even trying to resume, I. don't know, anything resembling what. your life looked like before this movie. >> Well, it's a good question. I've been. thinking about it myself. The honest. answer is that I don't know. I think we. will go back eventually. And I hope that. I can continue my work as a journalist.

and as a filmmaker. And if it means I. can't walk as freely as I could before. in certain areas of Israel that are more. right-wing, then that's maybe a price. that I will pay. I'm not the only one. I. mean, people are constantly paying very. heavy prices for the work that they are. doing, much heavier than than this kind. of price. So, I don't want to act the. victim. I mean, we I'm not like we we. did something that we believe is. important and we believe is true and and. people should watch it and we know that. sometimes these kinds of things can come. with a certain price.

>> Israel is our home and like our work has. been motivated and is motivated by a. sense that we want to change, you know, we want to change the place. We want we. want policies that we disagree with to. change and we want the place to be. better for Israelis and for. Palestinians. And I want to see this place that I was. born in to be a place not where there. there is uh people dying every day and. and horrible violence and stress and. it's really it became the the holy. lands, you know, Israel, Palestine. It. it it can be a a better place.

And I do think that there will be no. future to anyone if we do not have an. honest reckoning with the present and. with the past. [music]. Ival, Abraham, Rachel Shore, [music]. thank you so much for spending so much. time with us. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Rachel. [music]. >> We'll be right back.

[music]. Here's what else you need to know today. The capitals of Saudi Arabia and Yemen. [music] were both hit in a series of. strikes on Sunday, a day after Saudi. Arabia suffered its deadliest attack in. over [music] a decade. In that attack, the Houthis, the Iranbacked militant. group, struck an international airport. in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyad, [music] killing at least 12 people and. injuring more than 300. It was one of.

several fatal attacks by the Houthis on. the airport this past [music] week, shattering Saudi Arabia's sense of. safety and remove from its war with. neighboring Yemen, where Saudi Arabia. has been waging a bombing campaign. against the Houthis that [music] has. killed 91 people since September 3rd, according to the Houthyun Health. Ministry in Yemen. [music]. And President Trump said on Friday that. [music] he had reached an agreement with. Russia to immediately import Russian. diesel fuel to the US market. [music]. an extraordinary development between the.

two countries after years of American. sanctions on Russian energy exports. during the war in Ukraine. The move is an attempt by the Trump. administration to contain [music]. soaring energy prices due to the war. with Iran, one of the biggest political. liabilities for Republicans heading into. next month's midterms. Energy experts, however, say the deal is. not likely to have a major [music]. impact on the cost of diesel.

Today's episode was produced by Ricky. Netszki [music] and Claire Tenniseter. with help from Carlos Prio. It was. edited by Maria [music] Burn with help. from Paige Cowat and Rob Zipco. Research. help by Susan Lee. Contains music by Dan. Powell and was engineered by Alyssa. Moxley. [music] Our theme music is by. Wonderly. Special thanks to Aaron. Boxerman, David Halfinger, Yara Bayumi, and Isabelle Kersner. >> [music].

>> That's it for the daily. I'm Rachel. Abrams. See you tomorrow. [music].