JERUSALEM (VINnews) — An Israeli documentary challenging the allegations made in the controversial film NAZA has been released online, offering an alternative account of Israel’s conduct during the Gaza war through interviews with IDF commanders and intelligence officers who actually participated in the fighting.

Join our WhatsApp group

Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email

Titled Naza: The Real Story, the 49-minute film was released on September 30 by filmmakers Roi Danino, Ariel Averbuch and Hagay Gutman. It is available free online, with English and other language versions and subtitles in dozens of languages and has garnered nearly 40 million views in its first week online. It can be viewed at https://nazadocumentary.com/

The film was produced as a direct response to NAZA, the documentary by Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor that won the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival.

The original NAZA examines Israel’s targeting procedures during the Gaza war and relies heavily on testimony from Israeli military and intelligence personnel whose identities were concealed. Its filmmakers have said their broader investigation involved more than 100 sources. The documentary alleges that Israeli military procedures enabled strikes to be approved despite expectations of substantial civilian casualties.

The IDF has rejected those allegations, arguing that the film presents a misleading picture of the targeting process and fails to reflect the multiple layers of intelligence, legal review and command approval involved in operational decisions.

Naza: The Real Story seeks to present what its creators describe as the other side of the story. Rather than relying primarily on anonymous sources, the counter-documentary features identified Israeli commanders, officers and reservists discussing their experiences during the war. The film combines their testimony with combat footage, declassified material and what its creators describe as captured Hamas intelligence.

A central theme is Hamas’ use of civilian areas for military purposes. The filmmakers argue that Hamas fighters, weapons and infrastructure were frequently located in or near residential neighborhoods and other civilian facilities, creating difficult conditions for Israeli forces attempting to identify and strike military targets.

The documentary also addresses the presence of Israeli hostages in Gaza, including claims that hostages were held in civilian areas, and examines the challenges involved in providing humanitarian assistance while fighting an armed organization operating within densely populated territory.

According to The Jerusalem Post, the filmmakers sought to demonstrate how operational decisions were made and what restrictions were placed on Israeli forces before attacks were approved.

The film’s creators say the purpose is not simply to deny civilian casualties, but to provide context for how and why they occurred and to challenge what they regard as an incomplete portrayal of the battlefield.

The dispute between the two documentaries centers in part on Israel’s targeting process. NAZA argues that Israeli military procedures and technological systems contributed to a pattern of attacks in which civilian casualties were knowingly accepted at significant levels.

The IDF has strongly disputed that interpretation. It has acknowledged using artificial-intelligence-assisted systems as part of its intelligence work but says such systems do not independently authorize attacks. According to the military, potential targets undergo additional intelligence, legal and operational scrutiny before commanders decide whether to approve strikes.

The filmmakers behind Naza: The Real Story place particular emphasis on those human decision-making processes and on the operational environment in which Israeli commanders were making decisions.

The release of Naza: The Real Story adds another chapter to the increasingly intense battle over how the Gaza war is documented and understood internationally.

Rather than a single accepted narrative, audiences now have two productions presenting fundamentally different accounts: one built largely around testimony from Israeli personnel criticizing aspects of the military campaign, and another featuring Israeli commanders defending their decisions and describing the conditions under which they operated.