'NAZA': Automated warfare's chilling ethical abyss

Can a film truly expose the dehumanizing machinery of modern warfare, or is it merely a distorted narrative designed to provoke? The documentary 'NAZA', co-directed by Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, has landed like a bombshell, earning critical acclaim on the international festival circuit even as it ignites a firestorm of condemnation at home. Winning the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival and receiving a standing ovation, this 77-minute investigation has pushed the harrowing ethical implications of automated conflict into stark relief.

'NAZA' delves into Israel's use of artificial intelligence and automated surveillance in military targeting systems during the ongoing conflict in Gaza. It features interviews with 24 anonymous Israeli military and intelligence personnel, whose faces are obscured and voices distorted as they recount their involvement in operations. The film’s title, derived from a Hebrew military acronym for “collateral damage,” underscores its central contention: that anticipated civilian casualties were factored into strike decisions, sometimes with staggeringly high allowances, and that technology has facilitated a deeply troubling detachment from the human cost of war.

The Algorithmic Battlefield and the Detachment of Morality

The most unsettling aspect of 'NAZA' is its portrayal of warfare as a process increasingly governed by algorithms and data, far removed from traditional human decision-making. The documentary details the alleged use of AI systems like Lavender and Habsora, which reportedly process vast amounts of data to identify and assess potential targets, transforming the act of war into something akin to a 'goal-oriented office shift' or 'video game,' as described by interviewees in the film and reported by the Los Angeles Times. The film alleges that AI programs like 'Lavender' process vast amounts of mobile phone data across Gaza to identify targets, while 'Habsora' (Hebrew for 'Gospel') creates a 'factory of targets' for rocket launch sites or depots. One particularly disturbing claim involves the 'Where's Daddy?' program, which reportedly used hacked children's phones to track fathers, leading to airstrikes that killed entire families.

Interviewees describe a system where 'NAZA' values, representing expected civilian deaths, were assigned to targets, with approvals sometimes granted for values up to 500. Some even recount bombing everything at the start of the war, where 'NAZA wasn't an issue.' The testimonies paint a picture where killing from a distance became routine 'office work,' with soldiers seeing themselves as mere 'cogs' in a machine. One soldier recalls listening live as a child burned to death. Another shockingly compares the experience to the Holocaust, admitting 'yes' to participating in genocide and stating, 'We kill these children deliberately.'

The Fierce Rejection and Societal Rift

Unsurprisingly, these allegations have been met with fierce denials from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). After a full review, the military published a 10-page response, calling the film's portrayal 'distorted, misleading and disingenuous' and citing 'substantial factual errors' as reported by AJC. The IDF strongly rejects the claim of approving strikes with 500 civilian deaths and argues the film misrepresents their targeting procedures, overlooking crucial steps like assessments by legal advisers and commanders. The military also contends that the film leaves out important context, such as the October 7 attack and Hamas's use of civilian areas for military activity.

This backlash extends beyond official military statements. Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who condemned 'NAZA' as 'incitement', and IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir, who called it a 'blood libel', have denounced the film. These condemnations have been accompanied by threats against the filmmakers, with some Israeli officials, including Culture Minister Miki Zohar, seeking to revoke the filmmakers' citizenship as reported by AJC. The Los Angeles Times also reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened to revoke their citizenship. This controversy highlights a profound societal rift, underscoring the film's provocative power to challenge official narratives and spark global debate on the ethics of modern warfare and the accountability in an increasingly automated conflict zone.