When I learned that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had called for passing a law aimed at revoking the citizenship of two Israeli directors who made a new documentary about the war in Gaza, I figured that he was engaging in his typical flair for dramatics. But when I saw the film for myself, I immediately understood why he felt so threatened by it.
“NAZA,” which is set to release in theaters across the U.S. in the coming weeks, is a jaw-dropping indictment of Netanyahu’s military operation. Directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor interview 24 Israeli intelligence officers and soldiers — whose appearances and voices are digitally altered to provide them with anonymity — to reveal vivid, often horrifying details of the Israeli military’s incursion into Gaza in response to Hamas’ Oct. 7 war crimes.
One might wonder what’s left to learn or condemn after Gazans have documented so much of Israel’s brutal treatment of civilians through videos that have, at times, made social media feeds almost unwatchably grim. Moreover, many human rights organizations and scholars of genocide have for years characterized Israel’s ongoing operation as genocidal.
Yet even if you follow the conflict fairly closely, “NAZA” will likely reveal new information to you about how the Israeli military dominates Gaza and internally rationalizes its brutalization. And if you’re unconvinced that Israel’s military operation is beyond the pale, this might just be the thing that changes your mind.
What might frighten Netanyahu more than anything is some of the interviewees’ ultimate assessment of what they participated in.
“NAZA,” which is a Hebrew military acronym that means “collateral damage,” shreds the myth that the Israeli military is the “most moral military in the world.” Under international law, militaries are obligated to aim at military targets, to minimize civilian deaths and to consider “proportionality” by weighing the benefits of a military target alongside civilian deaths. But over and over again, the interviewees draw from their experience in the war to allege that the Israeli military targeted civilians directly in some situations, or otherwise systematically declined to distinguish between civilian and military life.
One interviewee describes how (often starving) civilians seeking out food were sniped for choosing to walk under a bridge rather than on a bridge en route to a distribution site. Another spoke of how civilians were only notified of certain no-go zones in Gaza by being shot at instead of through visual demarcation. (He called it learning “through blood.”)
We hear from another Israeli subject on the “benchmark” for acceptable expected civilian casualties per Hamas member killed. That number is 20 — a ratio that is unprecedented in Israeli history. But he also said he saw higher numbers, and said he saw at least one approval of a 500-to-1 civilian-combatant kill ratio for a strike. When describing why civilians were killed en masse, one interviewee said “the general atmosphere is hatred,” and claims by Israeli authorities early in the war that Gaza should be “erase[d]” created an imperative for mass killings.
The technological aspects that enabled widespread slaughter are also laid out in detail.
The artificial intelligence targeting system known as “Lavender” is described by one of the interviewees as having only 85% accuracy in identifying Hamas contacts, which he said was considered acceptably precise by his superiors. An interviewee said the emphasis in targeting was on “quantity” not “quality,” and that there was preference for targeting Hamas affiliates at night when they were at home with family because it was “easier.”Another subject said computer programs were used in the Israeli military’s systematic destruction of entire neighborhoods, with buildings that the programs determined were about 25% occupied summarily flattened.
But what might frighten Netanyahu more than anything is some of the interviewees’ ultimate assessment of what they participated in.
They used words such as “massacre” and “war crimes.” One said he believed he participated in a “genocide.” (In a particularly chilling moment, he still described his contributions as “insanely fun.”) An interviewee said that he now understood Nazi psychology after participating in the war.
The Israeli military has said these and other claims in the film are misleading or false and are at odds with its stated targeting protocols. Israeli Chief of the General Staff Eyal Zamir said the film “is based on blood libels, deliberate distortions of reality, and grave, false accusations against IDF soldiers and commanders” and promised to use “every tool at our disposal” against the documentary.
“NAZA,” which was produced by The Guardian, builds on well-sourced, published reporting by the Guardian itself and other outlets including +972 Magazine and the Hebrew-language outlet Local Call. Collectively, more than 100 sources, including senior-ranking commanders directly involved in authorizing strikes, provided information. Moreover, the systems of targeting and behavior described broadly are consistent with the civilian death rate captured in the Israeli military’s own databases and reporting from other outlets.
One thing I learned from “NAZA” was that Israel has even more power over Gaza than I previously realized. It not only has total military superiority over the enclave and controls its borders and the flow of food and supplies into it, but it also has an extraordinary ability to see everything within it. Interviewees describe mind-blowing surveillance programs in which operatives systematically listen in on calls, read text messages, pore through people’s photographs on their phones and identify every building in the territory through a serial number. These details are often used not to minimize civilian deaths but ensure an easy strike. Some spoke about listening in on the final (often quotidian) moments of family lives — prayer, a baby crying, conversations between husbands and wives — before ordering a strike that could wipe out several families in a building.
The Israeli military is intimately aware of what it’s doing. Which underscores something I’ve discussed before: Even when ostensibly targeting Hamas, Israel is systematically de facto targeting civilians.
The reason I am cautiously optimistic that this documentary could be persuasive to some people who have defended Israel’s ethnic cleansing operation — a concept the interviewees openly discuss — is that it illustrates the disenchantment of people within their ideological camp. These are not left-wing antiwar hippies. Some of the interviewees describe themselves as from elite sectors of the Israeli defense apparatus, and some are even partially defensive of what they did, even as they describe it in critical terms. They’re primed to serve as what some social science research has termed “surprising validators”: when people from someone’s perceived in-group share an unexpected message, it has greater persuasive power.
Even under a “ceasefire,” Gaza is still being pulverized and civilians are being killed. There is currently no prospect of the U.S. discontinuing its shameful ongoing bankrolling of this great sin. I hope that this documentary reaches people who have averted their eyes from a nightmare that Gazans and international news media have documented for years. That, in turn, can help build a greater mandate for cutting off aid to Israel and restoring American credibility on human rights.
The post Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t want you to see this movie. Here’s why you must. appeared first on MS NOW.
Author: Source Author
From MS Now.
Leave a Reply