Last month, two films about the war in Gaza were released. They share the same name, but they are perfect mirror opposites. One is an investigation. The other is a propaganda tool. And the very existence of the second film is the most damning evidence for the truth of the first.
The first film, simply titled “NAZA,” is a devastating, 80-minute exposé by Israeli journalists Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor. It is not an easy watch. It is a meticulous, horrifying look at the automated, AI-driven targeting system the IDF has used in Gaza. The film’s title comes from the Hebrew term nezek agavi—”collateral damage”—and it details how the military created a system to calculate and authorize the killing of civilians on an industrial scale.
Its sources are 24 anonymous insiders from the Israeli military and intelligence community. They speak not of isolated mistakes, but of a systemic, bureaucratic process. One source claims there was an explicit approval to kill 500 civilians for the assassination of a single Hamas commander. This is not a story of a few bad apples. This is the story of the orchard itself, poisoned at the roots.
The response from the Israeli establishment was swift, coordinated, and utterly predictable. They did not deny the existence of the targeting system. They could not. Instead, they attacked the film’s credibility, calling its anonymous sources liars and its creators traitors.
And then, they released their own film.
The second film is titled “NAZA: The Real Story.” It is a 49-minute rebuttal, produced by a team of IDF reserve officers. Its stated goal, as one of its creators said, was to “seize the media narrative back.” It is a piece of counter-propaganda, designed to be shared by embassies and influencers to muddy the waters.
And here is where the lie reveals itself.
The Rebuttal Proves the Point.
The rebuttal film’s entire argument rests on the idea that the IDF is a moral army, forced to fight a Hamas that uses human shields. It features senior, on-the-record commanders who speak of strict rules of engagement and of cancelled strikes to avoid civilian harm.
But think about it. In trying to “debunk” the original film, the Israeli military did something extraordinary: they put their senior commanders on camera to defend their targeting process.
They didn’t deny the process. They defended it.
The original “NAZA” alleges a cold, bureaucratic killing machine. The rebuttal film, in its frantic attempt to sanitize that machine, parades its operators in front of us, not to deny its existence, but to assure us that the people pulling the levers are good, moral men. It is a confession disguised as a defense.
It’s the same logic I was taught in the IDF: we are the “most moral army in the world.” This was the psychological shield that allowed us to do immoral things while believing we were righteous. The rebuttal film is that shield, welded into a piece of metal and held up to the world.
The War in a Name.
The most cynical tactic is the title itself. By calling their film “NAZA: The Real Story,” the IDF reservists are engaging in deliberate information warfare. They are trying to hijack the narrative, confuse search engines, and drown out the original film’s reporting. It is the digital equivalent of shouting “fake news” so loudly that no one can hear the facts.
But the act itself is an admission of guilt. You don’t build a multi-million dollar, multi-language counter-narrative, promoted by your state’s embassies, if the original accusation is baseless. You do it when the accusation is true, and the truth is a threat.
The original “NAZA” film is a historical document of a specific, horrifying military doctrine. The rebuttal film is a historical document of that doctrine’s public relations strategy. One film shows the machine. The other shows the machine’s media team.
I spent my life deconstructing the lies I was raised on. The lie of the empty land. The lie of the “generous offer.” The lie of the “unavoidable” occupation. This is just the latest version. The lie has simply become more technologically advanced and its defenders more sophisticated.
But the architecture is the same. It is a structure built to obscure the truth, to protect the powerful, and to silence the witnesses. The original filmmakers are the latest witnesses, and for their courage, they are being threatened and demonized.
The rebuttal film is not the “real story.” It is a desperate attempt to stop the real story from being told. And in its very creation, it proves that the original filmmakers told the truth.