Netanyahu seeks prosecutions of soldiers interviewed for Gaza documentary
Benjamin Netanyahu has directed Israel’s attorney general and Shin Bet chief to identify soldiers and officers interviewed in the documentary *NAZA* and pursue criminal prosecutions. The film examines the killing of civilians in Gaza, and the order has raised concerns about pressure on journalists to reveal confidential sources.
In a letter, Netanyahu called for an urgent investigation into alleged security offences, criminal defamation and harm to Israel’s diplomatic and security interests. The military advocate general said prosecution would require evidence of security violations or disclosure of classified material, though disciplinary action may be possible. The film won the special jury prize at Venice and draws on interviews with more than 100 sources.
- Netanyahu seeks the identities of *NAZA*’s interviewees.
- Israel’s military says prosecution needs evidence of security violations.
- The film investigates civilian deaths in Gaza.
New here? Start with this
NAZA is a documentary film that examines the killing of civilians during Israel's military operations in Gaza. The film, which won a special jury prize at the Venice Film Festival, draws on interviews with more than 100 sources, including soldiers and military officers.
Benjamin Netanyahu has directed Israel's attorney general and the Shin Bet security agency to identify those interviewed in the film and pursue criminal prosecutions against them. Netanyahu contends the interviews involve alleged security offences, criminal defamation and harm to Israel's diplomatic and security interests. The military advocate general stated that prosecutions would require evidence of actual security violations or disclosure of classified material.
The move has raised concerns about press freedom and the protection of confidential sources in journalism. When officials seek to prosecute people for speaking to journalists, it can deter others from coming forward with information, potentially limiting the media's ability to report on sensitive matters.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Netanyahu and supporters of prosecution contend that soldiers take binding security oaths and legal obligations, and if classified material was disclosed or security protocols breached, prosecution is the proper legal consequence. They argue national security interests cannot be subordinated to journalistic activities, as information about military operations and strategic vulnerabilities can genuinely harm Israel's defence and diplomatic position. Prosecution represents enforcement of existing law, they maintain, with a principled distinction between reporting on military conduct and disclosing classified information or inducing soldiers to violate their legal obligations.
The case against
Critics argue that directing prosecutions of soldiers for participating in interviews creates a chilling effect that fundamentally undermines press freedom and accountability for military conduct, particularly when the documentary examines civilian deaths and received international recognition. They contend the timing and nature of the prosecution directive suggests intent to intimidate sources and silence scrutiny rather than address specific security breaches, and that the public has a vital interest in understanding military conduct that outweighs such concerns. Protecting journalists' sources, they maintain, is foundational to democratic accountability, and conflating speaking to journalists with criminal conduct risks making soldiers fear all transparency about potentially controversial actions.
Culture Government Middle East Politics World
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by The Guardian as “NAZA: Netanyahu orders identification and prosecution of film’s interviewees”.