Naza: Controversial Israeli Film Incites Death Threats

UPDATE: The film will be released September 30th.

Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor have collaborated on a controversial new film, Naza.  It is a Hebrew acronym for “collateral damage”–a projection of the number of civilian dead expected from an IAF airstrike. Testimonies by soldiers portray the horror, especially the use of data-driven algorithms which searched out targets (ie. human beings) as if they were characters in a video game.  Use of such methods increased the number of potential victims and exponentially expanded the death count.

Here the filmmaker describes his purpose:

We made this film for one simple reason…testimonies from officers…that annihilated Gaza — those who conducted the surveillance, who calculated how many innocent people were likely to be killed in each house, and who repeatedly gave the green light to bomb entire families — would make it even harder to deny the crimes. And that denial is part of what allows these crimes to continue until today.

This is a film about a system. It focuses on orders, policies, and patterns of operation, not deviations from them. The conclusion that we draw from the testimonies is clear: The mass killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza was not a “tragic byproduct” of a war against Hamas, as it is commonly portrayed in Israel, but a premeditated, calculated, and intentional act. This is why a UN commission, the world’s leading human rights groups, and Palestinian, Israeli, and international scholars have described it as a genocide.

It was screened at the Venice Film Festival and won the Special Jury prize along with an unprecedented 25-minute standing ovation.  The project was a collaboration with the Israeli anti-occupation NGO, Breaking the Silence (BtS), which collects eyewitness testimony from IDF soldiers of war crimes and massacres they have witnessed or participated in.  By all accounts the footage is harrowing. The crimes recounted are brutal.

Their prior directorial project, No Other Land, won the Oscar for best foreign documentary at the Academy Awards.  It recounted the struggle for survival of the Palestinian village of Masafer Yatta, amidst the murderous violence of surrounding settler thugs and the IDF.  The global audience reception was rapturous. Except in Israel, where the film was met either with anger or indifference. Israeli Jews don’t care what happens in the West Bank, where the village is located.  That is why the current genocide there, with 65 villages depopulated, 5,000 residents expelled, and 1,100 Palestinians murdered, continues at its murderous pace.

Naza hasn’t even been released, yet it has stirred a hornet’s nest of hate from Israel.  Netanyahu has plans to revoke Abraham’s and Szor’s Israeli citizenship (no Israeli, Jew or Palestinian has ever been stripped of citizenship). The culture minister demanded the Shin Bet investigate them on a charge of treason.  The army chief of staff has urged the intelligence agency to investigate the alleged exposure of material damaging to national security. An Israeli security source tells me that the Shin Bet has better things to do with its time–like catching terrorists.

Even the so-called Opposition has condemned the film. Former chief of staff and potential prime minister, Gadi Eisenkot accused the film of “moral blindness” and causing harm to Israel “in this difficult time.”  I’d say that 75,000 dead betrays a damn sight more moral blindness than any movie.  And as for the difficult time: who has a more difficult time? The mother of a dead baby or a general who’s committed war crimes and belongs in the Hague?

Naftali Bennett, a past prime minister, called it a “horrific blood libel.” Imagine–a people once horrifically accused of killing Christian babies, now kills Palestinian babies and demands sympathy. These responses not only betray the bankruptcy of Israeli politics, but that of Zionism as well.  Israel and Zionism are fast approaching a dead end–only they don’t know it yet.

They’ve been particularly apoplectic about the reference to genocide.  It’s ironic that while Israel commits genocide with the overwhelming support of its Jewish citizens and oblivious to the repercussions of impunity; it responds with fury when the world charges it with genocide. It wants its immolated cake and to eat it too.

A graffiti artist created a street mural depicting the directors as prisoners with mugshots next to gun targets with a defiled Israeli flag in the background.  In the foreground, dripping blood read text says “Traitors.” Vigilante mobs have swarmed the home of Abraham’s parents demanding he be hung.  And not in effigy!

These are not threats, they are a promise.  Not since Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination in 1995, has there been this level of homicidal hatred directed at individual citizens.  They are thankfully abroad promoting their film.  It is almost certain that they can no longer enter Israel safely–at least for quite some time.  If they did, the threat of death would loom over them menacingly.  Films routinely arouse anger and controversy. But rarely if ever do they lead to the murder of the director.  Israel, however, is that rare nation in which such acts are not only possible, but probable.

The Israeli onslaught is especially self-defeating. Every threat, every IDF general, prime minister or foreign ministry official–every official social media post attacking the film, adds to its interest. If not inside Israel, then certainly abroad.  Instead of ignoring it in the expectation that doing so would tamp down interest, they fan the flames.  It’s like driving past a car accident on the highway. If you ignore it you will speed on your way to your destination. But if you give in to the natural human urge to rubber-neck, you and all the other drivers doing the same will slow traffic to a halt.

Criticism of Naza

Though Naza is an admirable effort, there are several serious criticisms leveled at it.  Most importantly, due to the hostility soldiers face when they become whistleblowers, Breaking the Silence grants its sources anonymity.  Their accounts are verified and cross-checked by NGO researchers. But the individuals are not identified.  This has opened its work to criticism by right-wing extremists who raise the possibility of fraud due to hiding any identifying information.

Thus, it contravenes journalistic and documentary film standards, which normally demand transparency regarding sources.  One understands why the sources might fear for their safety if they went public. On the other hand, the material becomes easier to impeach via this choice.

The role of Breaking the Silence is problematic. It adds a thin veneer of respectability to its liberal Zionist stance. If there are soldiers who experience tortured regret over their crimes and beg for forgiveness, it offers hope for Zionism. It suggests there is a good version, if only one strives hard enough. Decency, dignity and peaceful existence are possible, it declares. However, Israel and Zionism are irredeemable. Gaza has destroyed beyond a shadow of a doubt, any positive image Israel once had.  A recent CNN poll found that Israel’s approval rating had plummeting from +51 to -16%. A decline of 65% over the past eight years.  This is a point from which there is no going back.

Nevertheless, the NGO has endured constant threats from the hard-right.  Most of the attacks employ arguments which parallel those against Naza.  But one stands out as different: BtS testifies before international bodies like the UN, detailing the same crimes it reports inside Israel. Bearing witness before such international bodies is especially problematic, because they hold special global moral and legal standing. That’s especially dangerous. This “airing of dirty linen” is viewed by many Israelis as adding fuel to the fire of world anti-Semitism. It argues that criticism of Israel abroad harms the state (and by extention, the Jewish people).  Though Szor and Abraham engage in similar activities, their promotion of Naza engages filmgoers, critics, film festivals, etc. A wide audience. But not one that will bring a general or prime minister before the dock in the Hague.

Above, Abraham says the reason for making the film is to “make it even harder [presumably, for Israelis] to deny the crimes.”  The vast majority of Israelis approve of these crimes (though they would not label them as such).  How do you get a people to admit or recognize war crimes when they approve of them in the first place?  It is a lost cause.

The only and best reason to make such a film is to document war crimes for the entire world to see. To force the world to see the crimes, and shame it for refusing to do anything about in. In this sense, the film accomplishes the first purpose but falls short in the second.  It documents the crimes meticulously. But doesn’t offer a call for action.; summoning the world to bring Israel and its leaders to justice.  Imposing sanctions, boycott, etc. To denounce Zionism and the state is represents.

Though the film has not yet been released (debuts September 30th) and I have not seen it, after a search of online sources, there appears to be little or no participation of Palestinians in the project. Nor have I heard of any Palestinians who authenticate the information conveyed by the IDF whistleblowers.  This has been described as “a deliberate stylistic and structural choice by filmmakers…to focus exclusively on inside testimonies from Israeli military and intelligence whistleblowers.”  To add a major new element to the film would detract from the power of the testimony of the perpetrators.

While I understand the choice and the reason for it, I question the directorial decision.  A film about genocide which omits the victims, except in secondary (if any) roles, does a disservice to its subject.  Can anyone imagine a film about Auschwitz told solely from the point of view of prison guards who developed guilty consciences after the War?  Of course such a phenomenon would be important.  But erasing the victims from the account seems unpardonable.