Israeli minister threatens to strip Israeli film-makers of citizenship over Gaza documentary NAZA

← Back to the feed

Israeli minister threatens to strip Israeli film-makers of citizenship over Gaza documentary NAZA

Developing story first seen 2 hours ago

The Guardian · 2 hours ago

The row over NAZA, the Oscar-winning directors' documentary on Israel's mass killing of Gaza civilians, has escalated, with Israel's military chief now saying legal measures against the film-makers are being examined. Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir said the film was "based on blood libels, deliberate distortions of reality and grave, false accusations" against soldiers and commanders, adding to culture minister Miki Zohar's call to strip directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor of their citizenship for "treason".

Further senior figures have piled in, with national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir telling the pair to "go away" and predicting Hamas would "welcome them with open arms", while former defence minister Avigdor Lieberman branded them "haters of Israel" and ex-prime minister Naftali Bennett called the film "a horrific blood libel". Abraham hit back, telling the Guardian the risks he and Szor take reflect Israel's "Jewish-Israeli supremacy", contrasting their situation with Palestinians facing "US-funded bulldozers and weapons" rather than a mob. The film, built on testimony from 24 military and intelligence whistleblowers, won a special jury prize at Venice after a record 25-minute ovation; citizenship revocation remains legally possible but rarely used, requiring sign-off from the interior and justice ministers and the courts.

  • Israeli military chief says legal action against NAZA film-makers being explored
  • Ben-Gvir, Lieberman, Bennett join condemnation of the Gaza documentary
  • Director Abraham defends film, citing Israeli "supremacy" versus Palestinian risk

New here? Start with this

Israel's mass killing of Gaza civilians has been documented in NAZA, a film by Israeli directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor built on testimony from 24 military and intelligence whistleblowers. It premiered at the Venice Film Festival, where it won a special jury prize and received an unusually long standing ovation, before going on to Oscar recognition. Abraham previously co-directed No Other Land, another Israeli-Palestinian documentary that drew similar political controversy.

The film's claims have provoked a strong backlash from senior figures in the Israeli government and military. Culture minister Miki Zohar has called for the directors to be stripped of their citizenship on grounds of treason, military chief Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir has described the film as based on false accusations against soldiers, and other politicians, including national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and former officials Avigdor Lieberman and Naftali Bennett, have condemned the film-makers in strong terms.

Citizenship revocation is a rarely used and legally complex process in Israel, requiring approval from the interior and justice ministers as well as the courts. The dispute touches on broader and long-running debates about the Gaza war, freedom of expression, and how Israeli society should respond to critical accounts of its own military's conduct.

Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Supporters of the government's stance argue that soldiers who risked their lives fighting a war triggered by the 7 October attacks deserve protection from what they see as one-sided, uncorroborated accusations that could endanger them with prosecution abroad or vigilante reprisal at home. They contend that a documentary built largely on anonymous testimony, released to international acclaim while Israel is still at war, risks being weaponised in a global propaganda contest, lending credibility to accusations of genocide that they believe are false and deeply damaging to Israel's standing and to the safety of its citizens and soldiers serving overseas. For them, citizenship is bound up with a duty of loyalty in wartime, and public figures using extreme language such as "blood libel" or "treason" reflects how existential they consider the threat posed by the film's narrative to be, even if few expect the citizenship-stripping threat to be carried out.

The case against

Defenders of the film-makers argue that a documentary drawing on the testimony of 24 military and intelligence whistleblowers is precisely the kind of accountability journalism a democracy needs, however uncomfortable, and that awarding it international recognition reflects its evidentiary seriousness rather than any anti-Israel agenda. They see threats to strip citizenship over a work of journalism as a dangerous escalation that conflates criticism of military conduct with disloyalty, chilling dissent and eroding the free press and free expression that Israel prides itself on as a democracy. For them, the disproportionate ministerial pile-on, rather than reasoned rebuttal of the film's specific claims, itself signals an attempt to intimidate journalists and whistleblowers into silence, and they view legal protection for such scrutiny as essential precisely because it concerns the actions of those who wield state power.

More coverage

Culture Government Middle East Politics World

Read the full article at the source →