The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has issued a detailed rebuttal to a recent documentary titled "NAZA," which scrutinizes its military operations and targeting procedures during the conflict in Gaza. The film alleges significant civilian casualties resulting from strikes, suggesting a high ratio of civilian deaths relative to militants and implying reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) in target selection. The IDF, however, strongly rejects these claims, calling the documentary’s portrayal misleading, factually incorrect, and incomplete.
The IDF statement emphasized that its strike planning and execution strictly adhere to directives that distinguish between combatants and civilians, with a clear mandate to minimize harm to noncombatants. According to the military, no strike has ever been planned or authorized with the expectation of causing hundreds of civilian deaths, and there has been no credible allegation of such an outcome. The IDF further insisted that AI systems do not independently select targets; rather, human intelligence officers and operational commanders are solely responsible for identifying and approving attacks.
While acknowledging that during intense periods of combat there may be less time for extensive review of targeting recommendations, IDF officials stressed that human judgment remains the final authority in all strike decisions. They refuted claims that the military grants automatic strike authorizations based on a pre-determined civilian casualty threshold or uses AI-generated target lists as pre-approved attack orders. Instead, the so-called “Lavender” AI program was described as an intelligence tool aiding analysts rather than a strike authorization system.
The military also highlighted its procedures to warn civilians prior to strikes and its ongoing investigations into potential misconduct. To date, the IDF reports opening more than 150 criminal probes and over 3,000 disciplinary cases related to its conduct in Gaza. It accused the film’s creators of selectively presenting interviews from former Military Intelligence Corps personnel who focus only on preliminary intelligence stages, omitting the broader operational and legal processes that govern strike approval. The IDF asserted that the documentary excludes key contextual information, including the complexities of combating Hamas, which it accused of embedding military assets within civilian areas, thereby increasing the risk of collateral damage.
The film’s portrayal has also been challenged for its characterization of professional military terms such as “collateral damage” and its alleged manipulation of interview content and historical comparisons. The IDF contended that rigorous assessments of potential civilian harm are standard under international law and guide commanders in modifying or canceling strikes to avoid unnecessary casualties.
Despite its detailed rebuttal, the IDF has not publicly disclosed exact figures on civilian-to-combatant casualty ratios during the conflict. Estimates suggest tens of thousands of Gazan civilians have been killed, with Israeli officials estimating around 25,000 of the dead were members of Hamas. Questions remain about how many Palestinians died as a direct result of the conflict versus other causes during the period.
Representatives associated with the documentary maintain that its participants include personnel involved at various levels of the target authorization process, and that extensive verification supports the credibility of their testimonies. They contend that the film is based on thorough, multi-year reporting and corroborated by classified documents and sources beyond those appearing on camera. Furthermore, several major international news organizations have independently confirmed the IDF’s use of AI-driven targeting and the easing of safeguards aimed at protecting civilians during the Gaza offensive.
The dispute underscores the complexities and controversies surrounding military operations in densely populated areas and highlights ongoing challenges in assessing civilian harm and military accountability amid armed conflict.