Israel Opens Inquiries Into Venice-Winning Gaza Documentary Naza
Israel opened criminal and administrative inquiries into the documentary Naza on September 14, 2026.
The film is by Israeli journalists Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor. It won the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival in September 2026 after a 25-minute standing ovation at its premiere, according to Al Jazeera.
Naza takes its title from an Israeli military term for expected "collateral casualties," meaning civilians a strike is expected to kill. The film is built around anonymous interviews with intelligence officers and soldiers who served in the Gaza war. It alleges that mass civilian deaths were routinely built into targeting decisions during Israel's war on Gaza. A separate festival description described the subject as Israel's AI-assisted killing of civilians in Gaza.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the film "shocking" on September 14, 2026. He said it was part of global anti-Semitic incitement and accused the filmmakers of harming the country "just to get applause from antisemites around the world." National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir called the documentary antisemitic, as reported by The Times of Israel. Israeli officials have said the film could be treasonous, meaning a betrayal of the state.
The official response has moved through three separate chains of authority. Military chief Eyal Zamir ordered a legal probe to identify the anonymous military and intelligence sources behind the film. He instructed Israel's Military Advocate General, the army's chief prosecutor, to examine and advance possible legal measures concerning Naza and those involved in it. Culture Minister Miki Zohar asked authorities to investigate how Naza's materials were obtained, who is behind them, and whether obtaining or publishing them amounted to aiding the enemy during wartime. Zohar separately requested that Israel's Interior Ministry consider revoking the citizenship of Abraham and Szor on account of treason. Zohar posted on X that he would act immediately to revoke the filmmakers' Israeli citizenship for treason against the state, according to DW.
The director said they intend to distribute the film in Israel, as reported by Haaretz. No charges or revocations have been announced. The actions so far are orders for review, investigation, and consideration.
The broader context here is a contest over who gets to define allowed disclosure in wartime. Think of it as three tracks with different rules. A Military Advocate General review focuses on the sources, their service obligations, and the handling of classified targeting material. An Interior Ministry referral focuses on the filmmakers themselves and whether citizenship can be used as a lever of state response. A wartime aiding-the-enemy framing raises the legal stakes far beyond a dispute over defamation or censorship. Each track carries different procedures, burdens of proof, and political consequences.
Looking ahead, the Venice recognition changes the calculation for all sides. A Special Jury Prize with that length of ovation brings international distribution interest and press attention. That makes suppression harder and prosecution more visible. It also sharpens the domestic argument in Jerusalem that foreign acclaim rewards damaging disclosure. The announced intent to screen in Israel will test that argument directly. If authorities pursue source identification, newsroom protections, documentary methods, and military whistleblowing will become the central legal battleground. If they pursue citizenship measures, the case will become a test of the limits of dissent by nationals during an ongoing conflict.
