NAZA (Hebrew acronym for “collateral damage”), the documentary made by Yuval Avraham and Rachel Szor, has yet to secure an Israeli distributor or a public screening, despite its creators’ stated intention to show it widely in the country. Various senior executives, from the Israeli military chief of staff to the minister of culture, promised that they were about to “take steps” against the creators of the film. Other than stripping them of their Israeli citizenship (considered a remarkably rare measure), what those “steps” could be was unclear.
However, one refrain dominated the outrage directed at Avraham and Szor: Those condemning the film had no intention of watching it. It is important to emphasise that this oath to refrain from watching the film was authentic. In a way, it is a variation on a theme that became prevalent throughout the first months of the “war”.
When images of devastation began to emerge from Gaza, many Israelis wrote that they could feel no pity for the children of Gaza (at the end of 2023, the number of children killed and orphaned was already known and difficult to grasp, as were military “procedures”). These Israelis said they had “closed their hearts” in response to the huge, intentional death toll in the Israeli towns and villages surrounding Gaza. They claimed they would not and could not feel pity for anyone who had committed such atrocities, or for anyone related to them.
Activists on the Israeli left believed that if Israelis were exposed to images from the already nearly deleted Gaza, they would head for the streets and call for a stop to the war. These activists were soundly rebuffed. NAZA was, itself, a rebuttal of the position actively taken by the Israeli media – “Yes, the Israeli military had made mistakes but these should be investigated by the military and the Israeli legal system, both very much capable of carrying out the task.” Raviv Drucker, perhaps Israel’s most prominent investigative journalist, when asked by Yuval Avraham (during an interview of Avraham himself conducted by Drucker) why Israeli media had done nothing to expose the methods of killing documented by NAZA, said with visible embarrassment that doing so was “difficult” for a host of reasons.
However, Drucker was also quick to add that if it were up to him, he would not have aired the film because he believed it lacked journalistic professionalism, relying as it does on anonymous testimony. This line of criticism was quickly taken up by other journalists considered a part of the Israeli left. They attacked the film and its creators, accusing them of everything from seeking money and attention to actively working for Israel’s downfall in the service of Netanyahu and Qatar.
They were called “useful idiots”, meaning people who work for a worthy cause but are unwittingly used in the service of another. Journalists like Uri Misgav acknowledged the importance of criticism but implied that NAZA served the goals of Israel’s enemies. They suggested that its disregard for journalistic standards showed that the creators had already reached their conclusion: That Israel was the root of all evil and solely responsible for the state of Gaza.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
