Israel is waging a war against the Nazi documentary...with a film about Gaza

Listen to the article. The audio text is automated, generated by an automated system

The confrontation over the “Naza” documentary moved from objection to its content to competition with a film that mimics its visual style and presents an Israeli counter-narrative about the Gaza war.

While the work produced by The Guardian newspaper is based on the testimonies of Israeli soldiers criticizing the army’s practices, Israeli parties are promoting a film entitled “Naza... the true story,” in an attempt to reach the same audience and provide a different interpretation of what happened during the war.

The original documentary, directed by Yuval Abraham and Rachel Zur, is based on the testimonies of 24 Israeli soldiers, whose identities have been concealed, and deals with the use of artificial intelligence systems in identifying targets, and accepting civilian casualties as part of estimates of carrying out strikes. These are accusations that the Israeli army rejected, stressing that targeting decisions are subject to human review and procedures aimed at reducing damage.

In the face of these testimonies, military personnel appeared in the competing film with declared identities, to narrate their experiences and talk about the presence of fighters among the population and the use of civilian sites in Gaza during the battles.

Through their narratives, this new work seeks to present the actions of the Israeli forces as a response to the challenges of the field, with an emphasis on adherence to the rules of engagement and the protection of civilians, according to what those responsible for it propose.

Thus, the competition goes beyond presenting the different experiences of soldiers, to explain military decisions and the responsibility of forces for their effects on civilians.

This similarity gives the new work access to an audience that has heard about “Naza,” while making it freely available online, in multiple language options, expands its chances of reaching viewers outside Israel. Thus, the image and means of distribution become part of the struggle to explain the war, alongside the narratives put forward by the military.

However, the visual similarity was not the only point of contention; The anti-film website initially appeared in a way that suggested its connection to the original work, before its content was modified.

In the midst of the controversy, the Israeli Embassy in Washington said that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not participate in the production of the film, and that its role was limited to promoting it.

This competition has gone beyond digital platforms to reach cinema halls. During the screening of the original documentary at the Mill Valley Film Festival in California, pro-Israel protesters gathered outside the hall and distributed electronic codes leading to the anti-film, targeting the audience who were preparing to watch “Naza.”

This confrontation gains additional importance after the original documentary won the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival and was widely shown internationally. Its success allowed military testimonies to reach a larger audience, and pushed the competition over interpretation of the facts into a space where cinema, diplomacy, and political propaganda intersect.

Between a work that reveals testimonies criticizing the army’s practices and another that presents a narrative that defends them, the evaluation of what is shown remains dependent on evidence and the possibility of verifying the testimonies, no matter how strong the image and its influence on viewers.