Yuval Abraham & Rachel Szor Lift Lid On Bombshell Doc ‘Naza’ Exposing Israel’s Deliberate Targeting Of Civilian Homes In Gaza – Venice
Israeli directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, the team behind Oscar-winning documentary "No Other Land," have premiered a new film, "Naza," at the Venice Film Festival. Based on interviews with 24 Israeli intelligence officers and soldiers, the documentary alleges that Israel's military used AI, phone surveillance and points-based systems to select targets in Gaza and strike them inside their family homes, regardless of the likely civilian death toll, including children.
The film's title comes from a Hebrew military acronym used to estimate the number of people, including bystanders, expected to die in a strike. Abraham says the interviews reveal that "the basic targeting unit of the Israeli targeting systems is a family home in Gaza," with every building assigned a number within the system. The documentary builds on investigative journalism Abraham conducted with The Guardian, +972 Magazine and Local Call following Hamas's attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, which killed around 1,200 people; Israel's subsequent military campaign has since killed more than 73,000 people and injured close to 175,000, while destroying an estimated 90% of homes in Gaza. To protect their anonymity, interviewees appear in silhouette with altered voices and appearances, filmed on Tel Aviv rooftops.
- New documentary "Naza" premieres at Venice, from "No Other Land" directors
- Alleges Israeli military targeted Gaza civilian homes using AI systems
- Based on testimony from 24 anonymised Israeli soldiers and intelligence officers
New here? Start with this
Israeli directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor previously made "No Other Land," an Oscar-winning documentary about the occupied West Bank. Their new work is being shown at the Venice Film Festival, one of the world's leading platforms for documentary and feature films, which gives it significant international visibility.
The documentary is built on testimony from current and former members of Israeli intelligence and the military, gathered anonymously. It concerns the methods reportedly used by Israel's armed forces to choose and strike targets during the war in Gaza, which began after Hamas's attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023 and has since caused very high numbers of Palestinian deaths and widespread destruction of housing.
The film's claims relate to long-running and highly contested questions about how modern militaries use technology, data and intelligence to make decisions about airstrikes, and what safeguards exist for civilians living in targeted areas. Because the allegations concern military conduct in an active and closely watched conflict, and rest on anonymous sources, they are likely to be scrutinised and disputed by different parties.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the film's central allegations argue that testimony from 24 serving and former Israeli intelligence officers and soldiers, filmed at personal risk and corroborated by earlier investigative reporting from The Guardian, +972 Magazine and Local Call, amounts to serious, credible evidence that strikes on inhabited family homes were authorised with foreknowledge of likely civilian deaths. They would argue that whistle-blowers speaking from within the system deserve a public hearing, that anonymity protects sources without discrediting their accounts, and that given the scale of destruction and casualties reported in Gaza, documenting an alleged systematic targeting practice serves the public interest in transparency and accountability under international humanitarian law.
The case against
Sceptics of the film's framing argue that anonymous, artistically staged testimony cannot substitute for a full independent investigation, and that individual soldiers' accounts, however sincere, risk being presented as proof of a deliberate policy when wartime targeting decisions in fact involve complex assessments of military necessity, intelligence on Hamas's use of residential buildings for command, weapons storage or tunnel access, and proportionality judgements made under extreme time pressure. They would note that Hamas's practice of embedding military assets within civilian areas complicates any simple narrative of intent, that casualty figures cited originate from Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry and remain disputed, and that a film made by advocacy-driven directors and premiered at a major festival, however well-intentioned, may understandably invite concern about one-sidedness in an intensely contested conflict where such matters are better resolved through rigorous, impartial inquiry.