By Dan Rozett, Jewish Federation in the Heart of NJ's Director of Community Relations and Israel Engagement
The Israeli documentary NAZA makes deeply troubling allegations about how Israel conducted the war in Gaza.
I have only seen the trailer and publicly available clips. I also didn't fight in Gaza during this war. I wasn't there, and I don't know how targeting decisions were made.
What I do know is what I was taught when I served in the IDF. One of the first principles I learned as an infantryman was Tohar HaNeshek — “Purity of Arms.” At its core are limitations on the use of force, the protection of civilians as much as possible, and the responsibility to maintain our humanity even while fighting a war. These weren't abstract concepts, rather they were principles we were expected to follow.
Does every soldier always live up to those principles? Of course not. Mistakes are made, violations happen and sometimes individuals commit crimes, and if that happened in Gaza, those responsible should be held accountable. However, there is a difference between soldiers violating the values and rules of an army and those violations representing the policy or purpose of the army itself. That's where my questions about NAZA begin.
We are not watching this film on a blank slate
NAZA isn't arriving in a vacuum. After nearly three years of images of death, destruction and Palestinian suffering, attitudes toward Israel have changed dramatically. A 2026 Pew survey found that across 36 countries, a median of 67% of adults held an unfavorable view of Israel. A peer-reviewed study of 1,559 New York Times articles also found significant differences in how Israeli and Palestinian suffering, responsibility and agency were presented, concluding that the dominant narrative placed overwhelming responsibility for the continuing war on Israel while diminishing Hamas's continuing role.
None of this means criticism of Israel is illegitimate or that the testimonies from the 24 individuals interviewed be dismissed, but it does mean that none of us view this film without assumptions already in place.
What does the evidence tell us?
Much of the film concerns Israeli calculations of how many civilians were expected to be harmed in an attack. That sounds horrifying, but militaries are required under the laws of armed conflict to consider anticipated civilian harm before attacking a military target. The important question isn't simply whether Israel calculated how many civilians might die, it is what commanders did with that calculation. What was being targeted and could the strike be delayed, changed or cancelled?
The IDF has released examples in which it verified attacks were cancelled, delayed or diverted because civilians appeared near a target. That doesn't prove every attack was conducted properly, but it is relevant to understanding how the targeting system operated.
The battlefield itself also matters. Gaza combined dense urban neighborhoods with a massive Hamas tunnel network, while Hamas commanders and fighters operated within civilian areas. None of this eliminates Israel's obligations toward Palestinian civilians, but Hamas's conduct is part of the evidence too.
Who are the 24 witnesses?
Twenty-four Israeli military and intelligence personnel is significant, and their testimony deserves to be taken seriously, but who are they, what positions did they hold, what did they personally witness and how representative were their experiences? We should also hear from commanders, military lawyers, pilots and others involved in targeting decisions. If there is corroboration, the allegations become stronger, but if they describe a system in which targets were questioned, attacks modified or missions cancelled to protect civilians, that matters and should be presented for full context too.
Why this matters
Those of us who care about Israel must pay attention because this film will not remain a film-festival story. Its allegations will become part of the case being made against Israel around the world and, because the people making them served in the IDF, their testimony will carry weight.
Maybe investigations will corroborate some of what the witnesses describe and uncover decisions that could be hard to defend. If so, we need to deal with that. Supporting Israel doesn't require defending every decision made by an Israeli government, commander or soldier, and Purity of Arms means something only if violating it matters.
Accountability also requires evidence, context and careful judgment. A nearly 25-minute standing ovation isn't evidence, neither is our emotional reaction to a disturbing clip, and our love for Israel isn't evidence either.
The testimony in NAZA should be heard and thoroughly investigated. Discomfort is not a valid reason to dismiss serious testimony—but neither is testimony, however compelling, a substitute for evidence, scrutiny, and independent judgment.
NAZA raises serious questions that deserve serious answers. Until we have them, we should keep asking.
Update: Since this commentary was published, the IDF released a detailed response to NAZA, addressing many of the questions raised here about the film’s allegations, its witnesses and the IDF’s targeting process.