The IDF released an unusually detailed 17-page response Thursday to the documentary NAZA, which claims the military loosened restrictions on civilian casualties during the fighting in Gaza. The military flatly rejects the film’s allegations, arguing it’s based on “fundamental factual errors,” anonymous testimonies, and a distorted presentation of IDF decision-making processes.
-
Photo: Reuters, Canva The document opens by stating the film presents a “distorted, misleading and unrealistic” picture of how the IDF plans and approves strikes. The filmmakers, the military argues, chose to show only early, limited stages of the strike process while omitting the planning, oversight, and operational approval phases—creating a picture that doesn’t reflect reality. The IDF adds that the film ignores the operational context of the Gaza fighting and uses what it calls “manipulative” editing.
The military emphasizes that the term “NAZA”—collateral damage—is a professional term used by militaries worldwide and refers to assessing potential civilian harm as required by international law. The film, according to the IDF, presents the very existence of such assessments as evidence of indifference to human life, when in fact it’s a tool designed to allow commanders to change plans, add precautions, and even cancel strikes to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible.
The document also criticizes how the film was made. The IDF says the filmmakers never contacted the military for comment before release, didn’t provide a copy despite requests, and didn’t share details that would allow examination of the incidents mentioned. Because of this, the military notes, the response was written based on documentation from a public screening, public reports, and the filmmakers’ own statements.
The IDF goes on to explain that the anonymous testimonies in the film refer, it claims, only to limited parts of the strike process. Intelligence analysts don’t decide whether to carry out strikes, the military says—they’re just one link in a broad chain that includes commanders, operational personnel, legal advisors and other officials. Presenting the testimonies as if they reflect overall strike policy is wrong and misleading, according to the military.
The IDF also addresses claims in the film that strikes were approved where an unusually large number of civilians were expected to be killed. “The IDF never planned, approved or carried out any strike in Gaza where 500 civilians were expected to be killed,” the document states, adding that claims about approval thresholds of 200 casualties are also incorrect. According to the explanation, the numbers referenced in the film aren’t a “quota” of permitted casualties, but at most authority thresholds determining who can approve a strike, with each case requiring individual examination under international law.
The Gaza documentary “NAZA” earned a massive 24.5-minute #VeniceFilmFestival ovation as the crowd cheered and waved Palestinian flags.
This marks the longest-ever standing ovation at Venice, beating the 22-minute ovation for “The Voice of Hind Rajab” last year, and perhaps the… pic.twitter.com/WuE0Lr7ZFi
— Variety (@Variety) September 10, 2026
Regarding the “Lavender” system and the use of artificial intelligence, the IDF rejects claims that algorithms autonomously selected targets for strikes. The document explains that AI tools are used only to cross-reference intelligence information, and that every target is identified and examined by human intelligence analysts and officials before going through an operational approval process that includes commanders and legal advisors.
Another issue the document addresses is firing near humanitarian aid distribution centers in Gaza. The IDF emphasizes that rules of engagement prohibited firing at civilians, and that every report of irregular conduct is examined. The military also notes that following incidents in which civilians were killed, lessons were learned, procedures were updated, and steps were taken to improve the operational environment in distribution areas.
The document also addresses claims that “there are no uninvolved people in Gaza” and the question of defining genocide. The IDF rejects both claims entirely. The distinction between terrorists and uninvolved civilians is a fundamental principle in the military’s procedures and orders, it argues, and the claim of genocide is described in the document as baseless. The document adds that interviewees’ personal opinions in the film cannot testify to the military’s policy or intentions.
In its conclusion, the IDF writes that the film presents a “false picture of an army interested in causing harm to civilians,” and ignores processes designed to minimize harm to the civilian population—including canceling strikes, changing operational plans, requiring additional intelligence, and legal review of strikes. “The tragic consequences of wars do not justify distortion of the facts,” the document states, with the military concluding that the film creates a false impression by omitting factual context and presenting a partial picture of reality.