The IDF has strongly rejected the claims made in the film "Naza", accusing its creators of presenting a distorted and unrealistic picture of how the military plans and approves strikes in Gaza.
In a detailed response, the IDF Spokesperson's Unit said the film's narrative is based on "major factual errors" resulting from what it described as a distorted and manipulative presentation of events.
The IDF stressed that its binding procedures explicitly distinguish between terrorists and uninvolved civilians in Gaza. Strike-planning procedures are based on this distinction, prohibit directing attacks at civilians and require commanders to minimize the possibility of civilian casualties as much as possible.
The military also rejected claims that it planned, approved or carried out an attack in Gaza in which 500 civilians, or anything approaching that number, were expected to be killed. It added that there has never been a serious allegation that an IDF strike caused casualties on such a scale.
The IDF further denied that artificial intelligence independently selects targets for attack.
"AI has never independently selected targets for attack in the IDF," the military said. Targets are identified by qualified intelligence officers, while strike planning is carried out by the relevant professional bodies and the decision to strike is made by operational commanders.
The IDF also rejected the claim that its procedures automatically authorize strikes based on a predetermined number of expected civilian casualties, such as 20 civilians for a junior operative or 200 for a senior commander.
It clarified that "Lavender" is not a database of approved targets, but a database used to assist intelligence researchers.
The military also emphasized that issuing an evacuation warning for a particular area does not constitute permission to attack that area while disregarding civilians who remain there.
Contrary to claims made in the film, the IDF said it does examine the results of its strikes, including cases involving unintended harm to civilians. These assessments have led to investigations into hundreds of incidents during the war and are used to draw operational lessons.
'The film omits key elements'
The IDF accused the filmmakers of failing to carry out sufficient fact-checking and cross-checking of sources before producing the film.
According to the military, many of the interviewees presented as former members of the IDF Intelligence Directorate discuss only limited, preliminary stages of the intelligence process rather than the much broader process of planning and approving strikes.
The latter process, the IDF said, involves operational bodies responsible for planning and carrying out attacks. In some cases, the military claimed, interviewees in the film expressed assumptions and impressions that had no factual basis.
The filmmakers also chose not to show many of the other officials involved in the full targeting process, including professionals responsible for planning measures to reduce civilian harm, legal advisers who review planned strikes, and commanders who ultimately approve or reject them.
The IDF said this omission creates a "very inaccurate and misleading" picture of reality.
It also accused the filmmakers of leaving out essential context about the war in Gaza, including the security circumstances that led Israel to launch the campaign following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, as well as what it described as Hamas' deliberate strategy of embedding itself within the civilian population.
The military pointed to what it described as extensive measures taken to reduce civilian casualties, including warnings before strikes, selecting appropriate weapons, adapting strike plans and facilitating humanitarian assistance.
According to the IDF, these procedures have at times resulted in requests for additional intelligence, changes to operational plans, cancellation of strikes and the abandonment of military opportunities because of the assessed danger to civilians.
IDF: 'Collateral damage' is a legal assessment
The IDF also criticized the film's use of the term "Naza," which it said refers to "collateral damage."
The military said the term is widely used by law-abiding militaries to describe an assessment of expected civilian harm resulting from an attack. Such an assessment is used by commanders when determining whether a strike is lawful and what additional precautions should be taken to reduce civilian harm.
The IDF accused the filmmakers of portraying the detailed assessments it conducts regarding potential civilian casualties as evidence of indifference to civilian life.
"In reality, the assessment of expected harm is a requirement under international law," the military said. According to the IDF, commanders use these assessments to determine whether an attack is lawful, order additional precautions, modify the strike plan or cancel an attack altogether.
The military acknowledged that several interviewees described the significant moral burden involved in participating in decisions regarding strikes.
"The moral burden is real, and the IDF does not dismiss it," the statement said, noting that decisions that could result in civilian deaths are among the most difficult decisions faced by soldiers and commanders.
However, the IDF argued that the moral weight of such decisions does not demonstrate that they were unlawful or reflected indifference to civilian lives. "On the contrary," it said, "the moral burden reflects the seriousness with which the decisions were made."
IDF: We are open to legitimate criticism
The IDF said the tragic consequences of war do not justify distorting facts and that serious discussion of civilian casualties requires an accurate account of how decisions are actually made.
The military described the film as a "simplistic manifesto driven by a clear agenda," accusing its creators of using factual omissions, emotional manipulation and dramatic effects to create the impression that the IDF operates in an inhumane manner.
At the same time, the IDF said it remains open to genuine criticism and places importance on learning from substantiated claims and continuously improving its procedures.
"The IDF is subject to and committed to international humanitarian law," the statement said. "Its operational procedures are designed to implement these legal obligations, and it operates dedicated units and mechanisms to minimize harm to civilians."
The military added that it does not deny that mistakes and failures have occurred during the war, noting that such incidents can occur during complex combat operations. Suspected violations of international law or IDF orders are examined and, where warranted, may lead to disciplinary proceedings, criminal investigations or other measures.
Finally, the IDF criticized the filmmakers for not providing the military with their allegations for review and response before publication.
"Contrary to accepted practice, the filmmakers did not submit their claims to the IDF for examination and response before publication, nor did they provide a copy of the film after its screening despite an IDF request," the statement said.
As a result, the IDF said it reviewed the film's content based on a detailed account provided by a representative who attended a public screening, along with additional publicly available descriptions.