The film's narrative is based on fundamental factual errors, stemming from a misrepresented and manipulative presentation (a detailed response to the central claims in the film is provided further below). It consists of testimonies from anonymous individuals who, as a rule, describe experiences from a limited and initial stage of a process that includes many additional stages. The result is a highly inaccurate and misleading description of reality. Furthermore, the filmmakers omit essential context needed to understand the war in Gaza and the IDF's conduct during it, tailoring their presentation to fit the narrative the film promotes. The film deepens this distortion of reality through manipulative editing of interviews and comparisons to historical atrocities, while falsely and baselessly attributing malicious intent to the IDF—intent that the "evidence" presented in the film does not substantiate in any case. The interviewees raise difficult dilemmas that asymmetric warfare provokes, but the film's simplistic description fails to treat these dilemmas with the appropriate seriousness.
The film distorts reality in various ways, starting with the name chosen for it. In military terminology, 'NZA' is an acronym for "Nezek Agavi" (Collateral Damage)—a standard professional term used in every law-abiding military in the world, and used for many years in the IDF to describe peripheral harm caused as a result of striking a military target. Absurdly, the film presents the exceptional effort and the level of detail the IDF invests in such harm assessments as evidence of indifference to civilian lives.
In reality, estimating the expected harm to civilians is a requirement under international law, and the IDF conducts this assessment so that commanders can determine whether a strike is legal, order additional precautionary measures, alter the plan, or cancel the strike—all to minimize potential harm to uninvolved civilians as much as possible. IDF commanders have done exactly this countless times during the war.
The IDF is open to hearing honest criticism of its conduct and values learning lessons from substantiated claims to continuously improve its operational methods. The IDF is subject and committed to international humanitarian law; its operational procedures are designed to implement these legal obligations, and it operates dedicated units and mechanisms to minimize harm to civilians. Suspicions of violations of the law or IDF orders are examined and, where justified, handled through disciplinary proceedings, criminal investigations, or other measures.
Contrary to accepted journalistic practice, the filmmakers did not submit their claims to the IDF for review and response prior to publication, nor did they provide a copy of the film after its screening, despite the IDF's requests. They also failed to provide details that would allow the identification of the specific incidents allegedly mentioned in the film. For the purpose of examining the film's content, the IDF relies on a detailed review provided by a representative who attended a public screening, assisted by additional public descriptions, as well as the public statements of the filmmakers themselves.
This response is divided into two main parts: the first examines the cross-cutting issues in the film's content and its creation; the second addresses central claims made in the film.
Part A: Cross-cutting issues in the film and its creation
1. Interviewees addressing matters beyond their knowledge and area of expertise:
The anonymous interviewees in the film who address the IDF's strike procedures are described as having served in intelligence roles in the IDF. Their descriptions focus on limited and preliminary stages dealing with intelligence, and not on the much broader process of planning and approving strikes in the IDF. This broader process is not under the responsibility of the Intelligence Corps at all, but rather under the purview of operational bodies that manage and execute strikes. The film treats these descriptions as if they prove what decisions were ultimately made regarding a strike.
However, even assuming the interviewees indeed served in these roles and intended to faithfully describe what they saw (or—which adds another flaw—to describe things they heard from others), a common feature of many claims presented is an insufficient familiarity or understanding of the subsequent stages in the broader strike process that take place beyond their specific tasks. The result is fundamental errors and a misrepresented portrayal of the IDF's strike policy (specific examples are provided below).
For example, an interviewee might mention a general and initial estimate of the number of civilians present around a target considered for a strike, and mistakenly believe that this was the final assessment upon which the strike was carried out. However, this figure does not account for measures decided upon later in the process to minimize civilian harm. Measures such as focusing the strike on specific components of the target, adjusting the munitions or timing, and receiving updated information on civilian evacuations following IDF warnings, can significantly alter the assessment regarding the identity of those expected to be at risk.
According to IDF procedures, commanders must pre-assess the proportionality of every planned strike and ensure that the expected collateral damage to civilians and civilian property is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the strike. Concurrently, they must order precautionary measures to prevent or minimize harm to civilians. Professionals assess the extent and nature of this harm and propose alternative means and methods that cause less damage. Military legal advisors conduct legal reviews as part of the target planning process and provide stipulations and recommendations regarding strikes.
During the war, commanders decided to impose additional restrictions on strikes, alter strike plans, return proposals for further planning, or refuse to approve them altogether due to expected civilian harm—sometimes at the planning stage and sometimes in real-time, often following the unexpected identification of civilians nearby just before execution.
Testimony limited to preliminary stages in the process does not indicate what the final assessments were, the conditions commanders set, the precautionary measures taken during execution, or the actual results of the strike. Furthermore, the testimony of a working-level intelligence researcher cannot reliably represent the full IDF strike procedure or all of its policies. Therefore, these testimonies should not be treated as a complete description of policy or a review of decisions made. Despite the deception involved, this is exactly the conclusion the film invites viewers to draw.
2. Fundamental errors stemming from flaws in research and fact-checking:
The filmmakers could have identified and avoided the fundamental errors seen in the film had they conducted sufficient fact-checking and cross-referencing of sources in good faith. The final result shows they did not. Aside from anonymous testimonies of individuals whose exact roles and first-hand knowledge are unknown, the filmmakers do not cite military orders, real-time documentation, or other supporting evidence. The testimonies dealing with alleged strike incidents do not mention a specific target, date, location, or reported casualties, leaving the claims general and unverifiable, thereby depriving viewers of the ability to independently evaluate them.
By choosing not to submit their claims to the IDF prior to publication, the filmmakers raise serious doubts about their willingness to test their narrative against explanations and evidence that might contradict it.
3. Obscuring necessary context for evaluating the IDF's conduct:
The film fails to give appropriate weight to contextual details essential for evaluating the IDF's conduct, including the October 7 massacre, the military embedding of the Hamas terrorist organization within the civilian population in Gaza, and the steps the IDF took to protect civilians under these conditions.
A. The October 7 Context:
The context of the October 7 attack is essential not to "balance" suffering, but to enable viewers to understand the severe security threat Hamas poses to Israel and the subsequent security rationale for Israel's military actions in Gaza. The film gives inadequate weight to this, completely misrepresenting Israel's objectives in the war.
B. Human Shields & Urban Warfare:
Hamas systematically and extensively embedded military operatives, weapons, and infrastructure within and beneath civilian areas, exploiting hospitals, UN facilities, schools, and mosques for military purposes. Hamas operatives conduct military activity in civilian clothing. This is essential context for understanding the challenges of identifying hidden military targets in a civilian environment. It explains why the fighting in Gaza took place in an urban setting to begin with—a choice made by Hamas, not Israel.
C. Mitigating Civilian Harm:
The film omits concrete steps the IDF took to minimize harm to civilians. For instance, many strikes were canceled or unapproved due to civilian risk; significant manpower was allocated to a dedicated mechanism for delivering warnings and monitoring civilian presence; and the IDF employs independent legal advisors to ensure legal compliance. Through COGAT, Israel also facilitated the entry of more than 3.9 million tons of food since October 2023. These actions refute the film's portrayal of the IDF as indifferent to civilian casualties.
Part B: Examining central claims in the film
Claim: Approval was given to kill 500 civilians in a single strike.
The IDF never planned, approved, or executed any strike in Gaza in which it was expected that 500 civilians would be killed, or a number even close to that. At no point was it even seriously claimed against the IDF that one of its strikes caused such a number of fatalities. The filmmakers chose to highlight this claim (even putting it in the official trailer) despite having no evidence to substantiate it and no way to verify it.
Claim: Junior operatives included in "Lavender" could be targeted when expected civilian casualties were up to 20; for senior commanders, entire neighborhoods could be targeted with 200 expected casualties.**
This claim rests on two major errors: it confuses a threshold requiring higher-level approval with an automatic "permit to strike," and it presents a database as if it were a target list.
IDF directives have never given automatic approval for strikes on targets that endanger a predetermined number of civilians. For every strike, the commander must conduct an individual proportionality assessment. IDF directives divide the authority to approve strikes among different command echelons, requiring higher-level approval when the estimate of civilian harm exceeds certain thresholds. This is standard practice in Western militaries.
An approval authority threshold is not a permitted number of casualties; it only dictates *who* is authorized to make the decision. Specifically, an approval threshold of 200 casualties for a target strike has never existed. "Lavender" is not a database of approved targets. It is an intelligence cross-referencing tool used to generate up-to-date layers of information on operatives in armed groups. Inclusion in "Lavender" does not make someone a target or authorize a strike.
Claim: The IDF's 'NZA' (collateral damage assessment) count does not distinguish between adults and minors.
This is exactly what international humanitarian law requires: a civilian is a civilian regardless of their age, and no lesser value is attributed to the life of any civilian. The presence of civilians of different categories, particularly children, led commanders to cancel, postpone, or redesign strikes throughout the war.
Claim: Actual harm to civilians resulting from strikes is not reviewed after the fact.
Several IDF units review the results of strikes, including by monitoring reports of civilian harm. As a rule, IDF forces are not present at the impact sites of aerial strikes, so the ability to verify casualties is limited. Nonetheless, the IDF monitors open sources and utilizes other means. This review serves to initiate investigations of hundreds of incidents. Furthermore, there is an obligation to report any suspicion of a violation of the law or IDF orders. Every such suspicion is examined, and the Military Advocate General determines whether a criminal investigation is warranted.
Claim: Artificial intelligence independently generated tens of thousands of human targets that were struck.
In the IDF, artificial intelligence does not determine whether an object or person is a target, or whether a target will be struck. Intelligence-based targets are identified by human researchers according to defined procedures and approved by at least one authorized intelligence officer. They then enter a broader strike planning and approval process involving additional officers and an operational commander. Information processing tools merely assist in cross-referencing vast databases to focus the human researcher. They do not replace the human element, nor can they independently identify or select targets.
Claim: Soldiers fired at civilians near humanitarian aid distribution sites.
IDF directives strictly forbid targeting civilians. Rules of Engagement near aid distribution sites permitted firing only at military operatives or suspects posing an immediate threat. These sites operated in active combat zones where armed Hamas operatives embedded themselves within the population. Following tragic incidents where civilians were killed, operational debriefings were held, lessons were implemented, and the IDF took physical measures to improve safety (such as marking areas, placing barriers, and opening new access routes). All exceptional incidents reported were referred to the General Staff Fact-Finding Assessment Mechanism for review.
Claim: Buildings were bombed "according to an algorithm" in neighborhoods where a quarter of the residents remained, simply because residents had previously been warned to leave.
The basis for any strike in the IDF is the identification of a military target. Providing a warning does not allow commanders to ignore the presence of civilians, nor does it permit a strike in and of itself. No strike decision has ever been made by an algorithm.
The film's description of strikes on "neighborhoods" is misleading. In cases where Hamas used entire clusters of buildings as interconnected combat compounds (with command centers, weapons, and tunnel shafts), every single structure struck had to be examined individually and defined as a military target. Even then, every strike was subject to a proportionality assessment to minimize harm.
Claim: An understanding permeated the IDF that there are no "uninvolved" (civilians) in Gaza.
The distinction between terrorists and uninvolved civilians is a cornerstone of the IDF. It is unequivocally expressed in every procedure dealing with strike processes. The directives strictly prohibit deliberate attacks against uninvolved civilians or attacks expected to harm them disproportionately. While the interviewee's quote might reflect personal feelings, it in no way represents the approach of the IDF, its commanders, its binding directives, or its documented actions to minimize civilian harm throughout the war.
Claim: An interviewee was asked if it is genocide, and answered in the affirmative.
The claim of "genocide" is outrageous and baseless, and the State of Israel completely rejects it. Asking non-experts for their personal opinions on a globally defined legal term is manipulative and irrelevant. The defining element of "genocide" in international law is the specific intent to destroy a group as such. The interviewees could not testify to such intent because it never existed. The IDF's operations are intended to achieve concrete objectives: dismantling Hamas's military capabilities and creating conditions to return the hostages. Harming the Palestinian population has never been the objective.
Summary:
The film presents a false picture of a military interested in causing harm to civilians.
It fails to show the people behind the strike process: professionals entrusted with operational planning aimed at minimizing civilian harm, legal advisors reviewing planned strikes, and commanders responsible for approving or rejecting them in a military committed to the law.
Some interviewees describe the heavy moral weight stemming from participation in strike processes. This weight is real. Decisions that may cost civilian lives are among the most difficult that soldiers face, and the IDF expects its soldiers to feel that burden. However, feeling this moral burden is not evidence that decisions were illegal or reflected indifference. On the contrary: the moral burden reflects the seriousness with which decisions were made.
The processes and decisions the film avoids showing illustrate what the IDF's effort to protect civilians means in practice: demands for additional intelligence, altering plans, canceling strikes, and foregoing military opportunities. The film ignores this entirely.
The tragic consequences of wars do not justify distorting facts. A serious discussion of civilian harm requires a serious description of how decisions were actually made—which is exactly what the film fails to provide. The filmmakers' attempt to paint the IDF as inhumane relies entirely on distorting facts, omitting crucial context, ignoring prior IDF explanations, and employing emotional manipulation. The IDF has acted and continues to act humanely, even if the filmmakers did everything in their power to hide this fact.
*Image by Roy Kasher
Comments
Post a Comment