How ‘Naza’ Became a Media Crisis for Israel

A documentary about the Gaza war has moved far beyond the festival circuit, becoming the focus of a political and media confrontation in Israel and attracting wider international attention.

“Naza,” directed by Yuval Abraham and Rachel Shor, examines, according to its filmmakers’ account, how targets were identified and selected and how civilian casualties were assessed during the war in Gaza. The film draws on testimonies from 24 Israeli military and intelligence personnel, according to the Iranian Students News Agency (IRNA), which reported on the controversy.

After screening at the Venice Film Festival, the documentary received the festival’s Special Jury Prize. Its premiere was followed by approximately 25 minutes of standing applause, IRNA reported. The film’s reception soon became a political issue, as Israeli officials responded publicly and sought to challenge both its allegations and the sources of its information.

## From a festival screening to a government-level dispute

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused the filmmakers of contributing to what he called “global antisemitic incitement” and criticized their presence at, and the audience response to, the Venice festival, according to IRNA.

Miki Zohar, Israel’s culture and education minister, also adopted a forceful position. He raised the possibility of revoking the Israeli citizenship of Abraham and Shor and later asked the Interior Ministry to examine whether a formal process could be initiated, the report said.

Zohar additionally wrote to David Zini, described in the report as the head of Israel’s domestic intelligence and security service, Shin Bet, requesting an investigation into the information used in making the film. According to the account, he asked how the material had been obtained, who had provided it and whether classified information had been disclosed or unlawfully used during its acquisition, transfer or publication.

The minister also asked for an examination of any possible role played by foreign actors in supplying or transferring the information. He specifically raised the possibility of links between those involved and Hamas, according to IRNA.

These demands transformed the dispute from a disagreement over a documentary’s interpretation into a matter involving citizenship, intelligence investigations and national security claims.

## The military enters the controversy

The Israeli military also rejected the film’s content, describing its allegations as false, according to the report. Israel’s Channel 13 reported that the military chief of staff had ordered an examination of possible legal action against the film and those involved in its production, while also requesting an investigation into whether classified documents or information had been leaked and used in making it.

At a special meeting with senior commanders, Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir reportedly argued that “Naza” presented a misleading picture of the conduct of Israeli troops and overlooked efforts to reduce harm to civilians. He characterized the film as part of an organized effort to undermine the legitimacy of the military and the Israeli state, IRNA reported.

The military subsequently ordered the creation of a specialist working group to examine the documentary’s claims and develop possible responses. Its spokesperson’s unit was also instructed to arrange interviews with senior commanders and officials who had served during the Gaza war, including pilots and intelligence officers, in order to present an Israeli account of the conflict.

The measures indicated that the film was being treated not only as a cultural production but also as a challenge to the military’s public narrative about its conduct in Gaza.

## A diplomatic campaign to manage the fallout

As coverage of “Naza” increased, the Israeli response expanded into the diplomatic arena. Haaretz reported that Israel’s Foreign Ministry had distributed guidance to embassies and diplomatic missions in different countries on how to address the film and its political and media consequences.

The guidance reportedly emphasized rejecting the documentary’s allegations and reinforcing Israel’s official account of the Gaza war. It also attributed civilian deaths to Hamas, alleging that the group used civilians as human shields and thereby contributed to the increase in civilian casualties.

The report described these steps as part of Israel’s effort to counter allegations concerning civilian killings and redirect international attention toward Hamas’s conduct. The supplied account does not independently verify either side’s claims; it describes the competing narratives surrounding the film and the official Israeli response.

Other Israeli institutions also became involved. The country’s film council announced an emergency meeting on the procedures used to evaluate films representing Israel at international events. Zvi Sukkot, chair of the Knesset’s Education, Culture and Sports Committee, called for a special session on the documentary, according to IRNA.

Reports also emerged of a demonstration outside the home of a family member of one of the filmmakers. The incident added a further dimension to the controversy, extending the dispute beyond official statements and institutional measures.

## A response that amplified the film’s reach

The Israeli reaction appears to have helped turn “Naza” into a larger international story. Haaretz, citing diplomatic sources, reported that the government’s response generated more media attention than the film itself might otherwise have received.

One source in Israel’s Foreign Ministry was quoted as saying that the issue of civilian killings would likely have reached news headlines regardless, but that the involvement of state institutions brought additional attention and produced more coverage. A European diplomat quoted by Haaretz similarly said that the anger and strong reactions from Israeli officials had pushed the film’s audience beyond cinema enthusiasts and made it a global issue.

According to the diplomat, a substantial portion of the international coverage emerged only after Israeli politicians responded. In many cases, the focus shifted away from the documentary’s content and toward the government’s treatment of its makers.

That dynamic created a familiar media paradox: efforts to contain a controversial work can expand its visibility. A film initially encountered by festival audiences became the subject of reports about citizenship, intelligence inquiries, potential legal action and diplomatic messaging. The controversy consequently reached audiences who might never have encountered the documentary through cultural coverage alone.

## International media broaden the story

Following the domestic controversy, major international outlets gave “Naza” greater attention, again directing focus toward civilian deaths in the Gaza war, according to the supplied report. Coverage also emphasized the threatened citizenship measures against the filmmakers and the possibility of legal and security investigations into the film’s production.

A German public newspaper published a report about the documentary and separately covered attacks against its makers. English-language media that had initially addressed the film mainly in cultural sections expanded their coverage after the Israeli response intensified.

The change in coverage reflected the way the controversy crossed institutional boundaries. What began as a documentary screening became a story about the relationship between art and wartime accountability, the handling of classified information, the limits of official narratives and the political consequences of testimony from within a military and intelligence system.

## A conflict over narrative as well as evidence

The dispute surrounding “Naza” is ultimately a contest over how the Gaza war should be understood and who has the authority to define its events. The filmmakers’ account, as described by IRNA, relies on testimony from Israeli military and intelligence personnel and examines internal mechanisms for selecting targets and evaluating civilian harm. Israeli political and military officials reject the film’s conclusions and argue that it misrepresents the conduct of the armed forces.

The official response has sought to challenge the film on several fronts at once: politically, by condemning its makers; legally, by considering possible action; institutionally, by reviewing the film’s status and production; militarily, by preparing an alternative account; and diplomatically, by instructing overseas missions how to respond.

That breadth of reaction has itself become central to the story. Rather than remaining confined to a debate over a festival documentary, “Naza” has become a test of how governments respond when allegations about wartime conduct are presented through a widely recognized cultural platform. The film’s path from Venice to international headlines demonstrates how quickly a cinematic work can become a vehicle for broader arguments about civilian protection, accountability and the credibility of official narratives.

On the evidence supplied, “Naza” is no longer being discussed solely as a film about Gaza. It has become a focal point for competing claims about the war, the treatment of its civilian victims and the boundaries of public scrutiny in Israel. The reactions of Israeli officials and institutions have helped connect cinema with politics, security and diplomacy—and, according to the diplomatic sources cited by Haaretz, have carried the controversy far beyond the audience that first applauded the documentary in Venice.