‘Naza’ claims to prove genocide but its title may undermine its central claim - opinion

“Naza” co-director Yuval Abraham says Israel is committing genocide in Gaza—and that his film proves it.

Without getting too deeply into a film that most of us have not yet seen, it is worth beginning with its title. “Naza,” written נז״א in Hebrew, is an acronym for nezek agavi, meaning “collateral damage.”

That wording presents an obvious problem for the film’s argument. If Israel’s specific objective were to destroy the Palestinian population, Palestinian deaths would not be categorized as collateral damage; they would be the intended goal.

This distinction does not make civilian deaths less tragic, nor does it automatically establish that every strike was lawful. But it matters when making an allegation as serious and legally specific as genocide.

The only material currently available online is a two-minute trailer. In it, two purported IDF intelligence officers describe an alleged AI-based system that estimates how many uninvolved civilians are present in a potential strike area.

Neither the alleged officers nor Abraham disputes that the system classifies those civilians as uninvolved—and therefore not as the targets. Even claims that strikes projected to harm hundreds of civilians were approved are presented as unusual cases, rather than routine policy.

The identities of the two alleged officers have not been disclosed, so their accounts cannot currently be independently corroborated. The trailer also does not provide the operational documents or complete testimony needed to examine their allegations in context.

According to figures published by Gaza’s Hamas-run Health Ministry, the deadliest single strike of the war killed 132 people in an October 2024 attack on an apartment building in Beit Lahiya. That remains far below the hundreds of casualties described in the film’s allegations, although projected and confirmed casualty totals are not necessarily the same.

At most, the publicly available material accuses Israel of being too willing to approve strikes despite the risk to civilians. Such claims are legitimate subjects for investigation, as they would be in any war. They should be examined using evidence and the same legal standards applied to other armed conflicts.

But allegations of permissive targeting policies are not automatically proof of genocide. Genocide requires evidence of a specific intent to destroy a protected group—not merely evidence that civilians were killed, even in very large numbers.

Given the filmmakers’ public statements, “Naza” appears intended to strengthen accusations that Israel is committing genocide. Yet the title chosen by its creators points to a different allegation: that civilians were harmed despite not being the intended targets.

That may still support serious criticism of Israel’s conduct. Based on what has been released, however, it does not prove genocide.