r/changemyview • u/martindukz • 1d ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The main Israeli criticism of the NAZA documentary is hollow distraction
CMV: The main Israeli criticism of NAZA seems pretty hollow
For anyone who hasn't seen it: NAZA is an Israeli documentary based on testimony about IDF targeting in Gaza, including AI generated targets and how many civilian deaths could be accepted for individual targets.
The movie has 24 anonymous IDF/intelligence sources on screen, but the investigation apparently involved more than 100 sources, including senior officers and people involved at different stages of targeting/approval.
The Guardian reports that claims were cross-checked against other sources, specific strikes and classified material.
And the overall picture isn't exactly coming out of nowhere. UN investigations, Amnesty and other organisations have separately documented huge civilian harm, destruction of civilian infrastructure and extremely permissive Israeli conduct in Gaza.
Yet I keep seeing basically the same arguments against the movie:
"The witnesses are anonymous."
Anonymous to us.
The journalists know who they are and checked their stories against other sources/evidence.
Do people seriously expect serving IDF personnel accusing their own military of war crimes to appear with name, rank and address?
"They are just junior soldiers who don't understand the targeting process."
Except the investigation included more than the 24 people shown and reportedly included senior officers and people directly involved in targeting and authorization.
So this seems to be arguing against something the movie isn't actually claiming.
"There is no evidence. Just testimony."
Again, no.
The investigation reportedly used 100+ sources, classified documents and checked specific attacks.
You can argue that they should release more of the underlying evidence. That is reasonable.
But that isn't the same as saying it doesn't exist.
"No Israeli strike killed 500 civilians, therefore the claim that 500 civilians could be accepted is false."
This one makes no sense to me.
The allegation is about the estimated civilian deaths BEFORE the strike.
If you authorize a strike expected to potentially kill 500 civilians and it ends up killing 80, that doesn't magically mean the original authorization didn't happen.
"Those numbers weren't allowed civilian deaths. They were authorization thresholds."
Ok... but what happens when it reaches the person with authority to approve it? That is the relevant question.
If 20 deaths needs approval from person A and 100 from person B, saying "100 wasn't automatically allowed" doesn't answer whether person B then approved it. Nor does it provide statistics on how many times humans approved or disapproved the targets or what the process was.
It does not help when sources claim:
B. said that the reason for this automation was a constant push to generate more targets for assassination. “In a day without targets [whose feature rating was sufficient to authorize a strike], we attacked at a lower threshold. We were constantly being pressured: ‘Bring us more targets.’ They really shouted at us. We finished [killing] our targets very quickly.”
"Lavender isn't an AI kill list because a human approves the target."
Again this seems mostly semantic. The allegation is that algorithms generated enormous numbers of targets and human review became extremely limited.
If a person looks at an AI generated target for 20 seconds and clicks approve, technically a human made the decision.
That doesn't answer the criticism. Especially not when it is a heuristics where the score needed to be deemed "likely hamas operative" can be changed if they do not get enough targets.
"Israel calculated civilian casualties, therefore they were trying to protect civilians."
Calculating civilian casualties obviously can be part of protecting civilians.
But surely the interesting part is what number you then ACCEPT?
A system saying "this strike will probably kill 80 civilians" doesn't become humanitarian because someone calculated the 80 first.
"Hamas operates among civilians."
Yes. That makes targeting harder.
How does it answer whether Israel massively loosened its acceptable civilian casualty limits or whether targets received meaningful review?
Additionally the claim is that the identification of "hamas"-people is 85% precise, though that number is a claim, not a fact. But 15 innocents + families out of a 100 targets is very "non-precise targeting" for precise strikes.
The logic seems to be that all people targeted are Hamas despite of this.
"They ignore October 7."
October 7 explains why Israel went to war. It doesn't give Israel unlimited freedom in how it conducts that war. (and time did not start on October 7)
"The filmmakers are anti-Israel."
Maybe. Who cares? Are they Anti-"the right wing government" (= 75% of elected)
Show that their evidence is wrong.
The thing I find interesting is that most of these arguments don't really address the central claims.
The relevant questions are:
- Did Israel substantially increase how many civilian deaths it would accept for targets?
- Were huge numbers of targets generated algorithmically?
- Did those targets get meaningful human review?
- Were strikes approved while knowing large numbers of civilians would probably die?
If NAZA is wrong, those are the claims I would expect the rebuttal to disprove.
Instead most of what I see is "anonymous sources", arguments about terminology, attacks on the filmmakers and distinctions that don't actually contradict what is being alleged.
CMV: What is the strongest actual evidence that the central claims in NAZA are false?
•
u/LongjumpingDig5045 1∆ 22h ago
Have you seen this?
https://www.yairmiron.com/media/yair-miron-naza-manipulations-en
It seems to address a lot of the exact points you raise here, including the casualty thresholds, Lavender and the human review process.
Curious what you think of his response.
•
u/martindukz 22h ago
There are some nuances provided, but honestly I think it is very weak. And classical "smoke screen" / dishonest critique.
A lot of technicalities and specifications, without actually providing any sources (other than himself) that the claims or overall message of the movie are not factual or not true.
Are there any specific counter claims he makes that you find especially strong?
•
u/LongjumpingDig5045 1∆ 21h ago
If we go back to your original questions:
Were huge numbers of targets generated algorithmically?
Yes, potential targets were generated using these systems. But they were tools used by the military in a much larger decision-making process, with human review and multiple stages before an actual strike was approved. It wasn’t simply an automated process.
Did those targets receive meaningful human review?
According to people who actually worked with or around these processes, yes.
But your main question is:
What is the strongest evidence that NAZA’s central claims are false?
My question is: what is the strongest publicly verifiable evidence that NAZA’s central claims are true?
Ultimately, these are allegations, and there are people who know the system from the inside who describe it very differently. One of their main criticisms is exactly that the film blurs the distinction between identifying or generating potential targets and actually approving and carrying out strikes, leaving the viewer with the impression that these are basically the same thing.
The filmmakers say they interviewed 100+ people, saw classified material and verified their claims. Maybe they did. But we can’t examine most of that evidence ourselves, so that doesn’t really answer the people who describe the process differently.
And there is a built-in problem here: the people in the best position to dispute these claims are people who actually worked inside the system and understand the decision-making process. But those same people can always be dismissed as biased because they were part of the system.
I also don’t think the filmmakers themselves should simply be treated as neutral outsiders. They have a history of activism and highly critical reporting on Israel. That doesn’t mean their claims are false, but it does mean I don’t see their interpretation as some neutral counterweight to the people from inside the system.
Some responses from people familiar with how the system works:
• Yair Miron – point-by-point response to NAZA:
https://www.yairmiron.com/media/yair-miron-naza-manipulations-en• Sarit Zehavi – former IDF intelligence officer who says she was involved in developing procedures around target approval and reducing civilian harm:
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-truth-about-naza-or-collateral-damage/• Eyal Dror – says he personally participated in discussions where expected civilian harm led to strikes being approved, changed, delayed or cancelled:
https://www.jns.org/opinion/eyal-dror/what-naza-really-means-before-the-order-to-strike• Former Ramat David Air Base commander / fighter pilot – responds specifically to the claim about a strike risking 500 civilian deaths:
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/h1ytogytzg• Brig. Gen. (res.) Guy Hazoot – detailed response to the film’s claims about targeting, AI and civilian harm:
https://www.ynetnews.com/opinions-analysis/article/ryk8c5iyfx• NAZA: The Real Story – a full response documentary featuring people who describe the targeting and strike-approval process from inside the system:
https://nazadocumentary.com/•
u/martindukz 18h ago
I think these counter-sources mostly establish three things:
1. The 500 claim should be treated separately.
There is real contradictory testimony from senior IAF personnel. That doesn't prove it never happened, but I would call that claim unresolved rather than established.2. They make a fair point that NAZA can compress a complicated process into something that looks like:
AI finds target → strike approved.
There were additional stages: validation, collateral estimates, command/legal review, changing timing/weapons, and sometimes cancellation.
Fair enough.
But that still leaves the main question:
How meaningful were those stages in practice?
The reported Gaza “target factory” had around 300 personnel, many vetting Gospel/Lavender targets.
With ~37,000 Lavender candidates:
- 1 hour each = 37,000 person-hours
- 5 hours each = 185,000 person-hours
- 12 hours each = 444,000 person-hours
Even with all 300 working 60-hour weeks only on Lavender, 5 hours per target is about 10 weeks. And they were doing other targeting work too. This would be a lower bound. The numbers does not need to change much to make the task not feasible.
So “there were multiple review stages” does not tell us how deep the review actually was or the efficacy. In a military that is under strain, it is not unthinkable to conclude that the checks and balances were decreased.
Especially when one of the reason for using AI was to "remove the human bottle neck".
3. What I still don't see is data showing the safeguards were effective.
How many Lavender candidates were rejected?
How often were high-NAZA strikes rejected? Or any for that matter?
How many strikes were cancelled because civilian harm was too high?
The counter-sources show that safeguards existed.
They don't show how often they actually stopped bad targets or excessive civilian harm.
And that matters because UN, Amnesty, +972, NYT/Washington Post and others still describe very high civilian casualties, massive destruction, loosened targeting standards and limited human oversight.
So my updated view is:
NAZA probably oversimplifies parts of the targeting process, and the 500 claim is genuinely disputed.
But these rebuttals still don't show that the review system was effective enough to overturn the broader criticism.
!delta The 500 claim is too unspecific to prove or disprove. It is unknown whether it meant 100-500 projected casualties or what the number means.
!delta Process in NAZA movie might have been conveyed simplified or the process has been stripped down initially or over time. It is difficult to conclude without actual hard data. Until then the cumulative sources of outcomes is what we have.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 18h ago
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/LongjumpingDig5045 (1∆).
[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) | [Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
•
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 191∆ 23h ago
I'm extremely confused here. You start by saying it's acceptable that all the sources are anonymous, the only time I could see that being the case is if the published documents prove what they are saying regardless. But then you say they 'should publish more evidence', looking this up, the published proof is very thin. So we're basically down to 'trust me' for proof.
How about this? I interviewed even more high level IDF officials than they did, and Hamas ones too for good measure. They all say the documentary is not true. They obviously can't come forward with their real names. I have some documents that vaguely align with what I'm saying, I could publish them later, or I might not. It also lines up with the existing narrative of a bunch of people. What's the difference between that and NAZA, besides the production value?
•
u/martindukz 23h ago
What's the difference between that and NAZA, besides the production value?
- Journalistic trustworthiness
- Other sources (Amnesty, UN, etc)
- My own lying eyes...
These are the corroboration of the claims in NAZA, do you have sources/links that are counter to them?
- AI targeting at scale: Lavender reportedly flagged ~37,000 suspected militants.
- Very limited human review: Some targets reportedly received only brief checks before approval.
- Higher civilian-loss tolerance: Reporting says acceptable collateral-damage thresholds were loosened after October 7.
- Targets struck at home: “Where’s Daddy?” reportedly tracked targets to family homes.
- Large civilian harm: Amnesty documented repeated unlawful/disproportionate attacks with high civilian casualties.
- Mass destruction: UN reporting documents extremely widespread destruction of homes and civilian infrastructure.
- AI concerns echoed by UN experts: UN reporting has specifically raised concerns about AI-assisted targeting and proportionality.
- NAZA used 100+ sources: Including senior officers, with claims cross-checked against documents and specific strikes.
•
u/cbr777 1∆ 22h ago
Journalistic trustworthiness
How do you know they are trust worthy? Is it just based on the fact that you like what they are saying?
Other sources (Amnesty, UN, etc)
I wouldn't trust Amnesty International if they told me the sky is blue, I'd still go outside to check. Amnesty has lost all credibility with me since they started acting like a mouthpiece for the Russian government.
•
u/martindukz 22h ago
So your claim is:
Journalists, publisher, Amnesty, UN, and the videos and images that have gotten out of Gaza
is less trustworthy than
? What ? You? IDF? The Israeli government?
•
u/MVP_Legend_87 21h ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cdr550j818po
Hey remember when the 2nd in command of the UN lied about 14,000 babies possibly dying in 48 hours?
Still think the UN is trustworthy when they admitted they lied to get attention?
•
18h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 17h ago
Your comment has been removed for violating Rule 5 due to undisclosed AI content. Any use of AI-generated text must be disclosed, and the majority of any comment must still be written by the user. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard. AI-generated text is prohibited in modmail.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/martindukz 16h ago
Yes, that statement was wrong. Pretty seriously wrong actually.
The IPC report said that around 14,100 children aged 6-59 months were expected to develop severe acute malnutrition over roughly a year.
It did NOT say that 14,000 babies were going to die within 48 hours.
So yes, Fletcher completely misrepresented what the report actually said.
But where is the source where the UN "admitted they lied"?
Being wrong is not automatically the same as lying. He could have misunderstood it, exaggerated it, been incredibly careless, an idiot, stupid etc. If there is evidence that he knew what the report said and deliberately said something else it is a lie. But that needs evidence.
And even if he did deliberately lie, how does that suddenly make every UN report, investigation or dataset unreliable?
That seems like a massive jump.
So yes, Fletcher's "14,000 children in 48 hours" claim was false.
But that does not somehow prove "the UN lies", and certainly doesn't tell us whether the evidence in some completely unrelated UN investigation is true or false.
Also, the underlying warning about severe malnutrition was not exactly invented either.
UNICEF later reported almost 17,000 children admitted for acute malnutrition in August 2025 alone, and later IPC projections actually increased the expected number of severe malnutrition cases.
Fortunately that did not mean 14,000 dead babies. But that was never what the IPC report predicted in the first place.
•
u/cbr777 1∆ 22h ago
I'm saying that "trust me bro" is not a persuasive argument, how difficult is that to understand?
•
u/martindukz 22h ago
You are saying that this:
"Journalists, publisher, Amnesty, UN, and the videos and images that have gotten out of Gaza"
equates trust-me-bro?
•
u/cbr777 1∆ 22h ago
Without actual evidence, yes.
•
u/martindukz 18h ago
It is difficult to get any stats or numbers out of IDF.
So witness testimony + observable facts from the ground + comparisons is likely the closest we get. For now.
What counter evidence is there to that?
What evidence would you accept?
•
u/cbr777 1∆ 18h ago
Whistleblowers that are willing to testify in public, not BS "we spoke to some people, but we can't tell you who".
•
u/martindukz 17h ago
Please let me know what consequences are likely for witnesses that provides evidence or harsh critisicm of the military they are in?
Do you remember what happened to Snowden, or that one that leaked the video recordings from Iraq?
Do you know how many anonymous leaks have actually provided truth about military actions? E.g. Pentagon Papers.
Would you only accept whistleblowers? Or would UN, Amnesty or similar also work as corroboration?
→ More replies (0)•
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 191∆ 22h ago
Journalistic trustworthiness
Like Fox News? Journalists reflect the biases of their employers, that can be anything from far right to far left.
Other sources (Amnesty, UN, etc)
I'm sure any neocon think tank would tell you the IDF is too restrained if anything.
AI targeting at scale: Lavender reportedly flagged ~37,000 suspected militants.
Is that a problem? How long is the minimum?
Very limited human review: Some targets reportedly received only brief checks before approval.
How long is expected?
Higher civilian-loss tolerance: Reporting says acceptable collateral-damage thresholds were loosened after October 7.
Israel wasn't at war before October 7, so I would not find that surprising. What should the collateral casualty threshold be at peace time? Should it be the same in war?
Large civilian harm: Amnesty documented repeated unlawful/disproportionate attacks with high civilian casualties.
What exactly counts as disproportionate?
Mass destruction: UN reporting documents extremely widespread destruction of homes and civilian infrastructure.
Fighting was widespread so I don't find that surprising. In short, so what? Destruction will follow the scope of the war.
•
u/martindukz 22h ago
Fox news is classified as entertainment, not news.
Regardless, it is the words and stories from IDF soldiers and intelligence personal.
Which of the claims do you want to disprove?
Regarding 37.000 targets
Is that a problem? How long is the minimum?
The estimate was 25.000 hamas fighters in Gaza... (which is likely a high estimate given the sources). So 37.000 seem high. Especially with an 85% correctness maximum.
Israel wasn't at war before October 7, so I would not find that surprising.
I have a hard time knowing what to answer this claim...
They have been occupying and controlling Gaza and the westbank for decades... Killing, capturing and "mowing the lawn" frequently, so I think that statement you made is totally disconnected from reality.
Regarding infrastructure - have you seen the pictures of gaza?
Does that appear proportionate to you?
•
22h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/martindukz 22h ago
No.
Because I believe they and the Guardian has followed journalistic principles and the claims are echoed in reports from Amnesty, UN and israeli human rights.Additionally it aligns with the images and videos from the "war" I have seen over the last years.
Lastly it consists of statements from IDF personnel.
•
22h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/martindukz 22h ago
The "500 people" was not that 500 got killed. But the estimate was up to 500. We don't know whether it meant 100-to-500 NAZA.
So ignore that specific number.
What other claims are not echoed in other sources?
11
u/Kitchen-War242 1d ago
** Anonymous to us . The journalists know who they are and checked their stories against other sources/evidence.**
Implies that we should for some reason belive statement "we saw proofs and find them good enough but won't show you" when "journalists" constantly doing stuff like this https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/guardian-admits-photo-ancient-synagogue-israeli-suppression-palestinian-history-g85zet9e https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/25/bbc-whitewashed-anti-semitism-gaza-documentary/ https://nypost.com/2024/09/29/us-news/nyt-slammed-for-hassan-nasrallah-wanted-equality-for-all-religions/
(and time did not start on October 7)
Indeed, for example first main Palestinian leaders was Haj Amin al-Husayni and Fawzi al-Qawuqj, i recommended you to read their biography, especially 10-5 years before war of independence yourself.
•
u/martindukz 23h ago
Can you elaborate what I should gain from the link you provided?
•
u/Morthra 98∆ 22h ago
Bro a “journalist” - and not some bozo like Alex Jones either, a guy working for the New York Times - published a story saying his sources indicated the IDF trained dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners on command. Laughable.
Journalists have to prove they’re credible. The Guardian has proven that it isn’t in recent years.
•
u/martindukz 20h ago
I looked this one up, and I actually think the criticism of that specific claim is fair.
It was Nicholas Kristof in a NYT opinion column, not a NYT newsroom investigation.
He had a firsthand account from an anonymous Palestinian journalist, and there are several other detainee testimonies alleging similar abuse involving dogs.
But I can't find forensic evidence, video, named witnesses, IDF documents or anything independently proving that Israel actually trained dogs specifically to rape prisoners.
A canine-training expert also said that specific claim was highly unlikely.
So I wouldn't treat "Israel trains dogs to rape prisoners" as established fact.
But I'm not sure what that proves about NAZA or The Guardian.
A badly corroborated claim in a NYT opinion column doesn't establish that a separate Guardian investigation using 100+ sources is false.
It tells us the same thing I've been saying throughout this discussion:
Look at the evidence behind each claim instead of deciding that an entire publication is either trustworthy or untrustworthy. Especially for an opinion piece.
So what do you actually have that counters specific things from the Naza movie?
•
u/Morthra 98∆ 9h ago
It was Nicholas Kristof in a NYT opinion column, not a NYT newsroom investigation.
Kristof is a distinguished writer for the NYT. If he's spreading such grave misinformation disguised as "opinion" and the NYT isn't firing him, that speaks volumes as to the paper's values.
The NYT even said that the column reflected rigorous reporting standards.
But I can't find forensic evidence, video, named witnesses, IDF documents or anything independently proving that Israel actually trained dogs specifically to rape prisoners.
That's because there is none. It's physically impossible. Yet Kristof's claims were still treated as gospel by anti-Israel (read: pro-Final Solution) activists.
But I'm not sure what that proves about NAZA or The Guardian.
You're taking activists with a history of anti-Israel bile and treating them as uncritical, unbiased truth seekers. NAZA infers intent where it's impossible to without actually naming and shaming their sources. For all we know, the filmmakers could have simply made up the whole thing, but since it's a pro-Palestinian film they could literally have claimed that it was Jewish space lasers doing the strikes and the average Palestinian activist wouldn't have disputed it.
•
u/Kitchen-War242 23h ago
Be a bit more skeptical about journalists checking their sources if you can't check said sources yourself. Thought you likely already skeptical enolough if we are talking about journalists who you disagree with.
•
u/martindukz 23h ago
Can you be more specific?
Provide the actual claims that should change my view.
•
u/Kitchen-War242 23h ago
Entire Naza documentary relies on "highly biased people claim that they got proofs of their statements without showing said proofs to 3d party" and so only reason to belive them is if you agreed with them before seeing any proof at all (which you did).
•
u/martindukz 21h ago
Assume:
"Other organizations put out reports and you see images and videos aligning with the claims put forward in a documentary"
Does that make it more trustworthy or less trustworthy?
•
u/Kitchen-War242 21h ago
Depends. If video or image just shows something " aligning" without proving anything its just illustration at best and emotional manipulation at worst. Like showing images of destroyed buildings and dead people to show "side a bad". If images actually conforms what documentary claims its either hard proof (at least one separate statement) or fake depending on authenticity.
Other organizations are saying many things depending on their agenda. Sorry but appile to noble international law in face of UN commission and random ngo shouldn't work on intelligent life since Kurt Waldhelm times.
•
u/martindukz 20h ago
Images of destruction don't prove why a strike happened or what targeting rules were used. At most they prove the destruction itself. The scope of it can indicate a pattern though.
What I mean by corroboration is different.
If NAZA says civilian casualty thresholds were loosened, and separate investigations by the UN, Amnesty, +972, NYT etc. independently find evidence of higher accepted civilian harm, very limited review or similar targeting practices, that matters.
Not because "the UN says so", but because different investigations using different sources are finding overlapping things.
You can absolutely question the methodology or bias of any one organization.
But then the useful criticism is:
What did they get wrong in their evidence or reasoning?
"UN/NGOs have agendas" doesn't really answer the factual findings any more than "The Guardian is left wing" answers whether its sources exist.
And I agree that photos of dead civilians alone don't prove NAZA's targeting claims. I wouldn't use them that way. It is the cumulative findings from different sources.
And the absence of sources on the other side of the discussion (and the quality of the statements or claims) also means something.
•
u/Kitchen-War242 20h ago
Saying "your group have bias" dont really disprove anything but same way saying "my entire circljerk agrees with me" dont. One is personal attack and another is apeal to authority. If you think that someone else got better evidence of naza claims then film itself sure, productive discussion will be addressing what wrong with them, so feel free to provide them, not just list names)
•
u/martindukz 18h ago
What do you want sources for?
I have provided some examples here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1wy32h2/comment/pdzd8kw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button→ More replies (0)•
u/martindukz 21h ago
And you whole comment does not counter or disprove any claims from the documentary (ignore the 500 one)
•
u/Kitchen-War242 21h ago
Russell's teapot.
•
u/martindukz 20h ago
That is not applicable here.
•
u/Kitchen-War242 20h ago
It pretty much is. Imagine if one claimed that you killed a kitten and 5 anonymous bustenders seen this. Its nice if you have aliby for exact date that claimed but noone will arest you over this even if you was walking alone in same city when it claimed over "anonymous people told so".
•
u/martindukz 18h ago
What exactly are you calling Russel's teapot here?
There are a ton of sources that show a very high civilian casualty number, high amount of bombs, high amount of destruction.
So what is the teapot here?
→ More replies (0)
•
u/Lipush 21h ago
My issue with it is about it being simply poor journalist work.
I don't think I can convince otherwise, but let me ask you this, will you be open to waych a documentary which contradicts it?
•
u/martindukz 19h ago
I would. Is it the Israeli created "Naza the real story" or whatever it is called? Or what other documentary?
I am open to facts and honest logic. But bad faith arguments dishonest arguments are likely not going to convince me.
To be a bit quick: What documentary? Who made it? Why do you think it would change my view on Naza? What specifically would you think it would change my view on?
•
u/Lipush 19h ago
It was a theoretical question. For context, I haven't watch either Naza or "The Real Story". I do have a problem with the creators of the movie, not with their opinions but with the fact that unlike you here, they refused and still refuse to have their narrative challenged.
For example, the journalist Raviv Druker (who's considered one of the most anti-Netanyahu media people in Israel, btw) asked him some a really solid questions, such as, "When you determine the IDF intentionally acts in a certain policy which against international law, why didn't you check how militaries of other countries behave or act in similar situations?" Yaniv Avraham replied simply, "When you make your own movie you decide if to check that or not."
I mean, really?! What kind of a reply is that? Even before watching such a creation, I would get from such replies that it's a biased and poorly based work.
•
u/martindukz 18h ago
So you are attacking the people behind it now instead of the points made in it?
Regarding the question "Raviv Druker" posed, I read it as bad faith or irrelevant.
I agree he could have answered it better, but honestly there would be a million things that could be included or elaborated on.
Making a movie is about what to leave on the cutting room floor and what not to engage with.
Do you really think that if he had included in the movie (or in the answer):
This is what USA did in Afghanistan or Iraq in similar situation,
that it would not have been met with:
You can not compare Gaza to X
I truly understand (not lessened by the responses in this post) that it would have been used as a means of creating confusion and distractions, not clarity.
An example of creating confusion and distraction is that you write:
Abraham “refused and still refuses to have his narrative challenged.”
He went on a hostile Israeli TV interview with one of the country's prominent journalists, where Drucker repeatedly challenged his sourcing and conclusions. Whatever you think of his answers, that is quite literally submitting the claims to challenge.
•
u/Lipush 18h ago
I will "attack", or more likely CHALLENGE anyone who does poor, half job and call it a reliable documentary.
•
u/martindukz 18h ago
Were you unable to read the rest of my reply?
As I read your comment, I think you skipped most of what I wrote
6
u/HalfHumanHalfFork 1d ago
No, it's that most of its claims are so over the top and non sensical that they became an obvious lie to anyone who participated in the war or knows one who did (which is the vast majority of the Israeli population)
In the movie they claim that there were constantly approved strikes with 500 expected collaterals, but even the deadliest strikes of the war, ones that eliminated Nastrallah or Muhammad Death didn't have even close to that amount of death, let alone death of collaterals (rather than other terrorists)
I am at work so I can't list all the BS in there, but really everything in it just doesn't make any sense to anyone who has the most basic knowledge about this conflict
Also the Guardian is not a credible source on anything Jewish related, they reported that Al Akhli hospital was struck by Israel and 500 were killed, despite that evidence came out that it was an Islamic Jihad failed rocket, landing in the parking lot killing about 10
•
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 191∆ 23h ago
In the movie they claim that there were constantly approved strikes with 500 expected collaterals
A lot of strikes in Russian territory are reported to have 200 casualties because their code for casualties is 'cargo 200' and journalists misunderstand it. If the number 500 shows up a lot in these strikes, it sounds like an IDF code for a weapon, or something similar, probably includes 500, the journalists read that in some documents over and over and misunderstood it. Most of the strikes were done with ATGMs, it would be impossible to kill 500 with that even if you fired into a dense crowd.
This would line up with the allegation that they mostly interviewed junior IDF members. Israel has conscription, so getting a ton of poorly informed nominal IDF members to talk too is very easy.
•
u/martindukz 23h ago
What do you base the "military code 500" on?
Pure spec?
What do you base the "junior IDF members" on?
The filmmakers say they spoke with more than 100 sources, including senior officers involved at different levels of the targeting process.
•
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 191∆ 23h ago
What do you base the "military code 500" on?
500 casualties on an ATGM strike is essentially impossible. Having that show up frequently implies either the IDF over estimated casualty potentials 10x or more, which runs contrary to the narrative, or they are misunderstanding something.
The filmmakers say they spoke with more than 100 sources, including senior officers involved at different levels of the targeting process.
With zero proof of that given.
•
u/martindukz 22h ago
500 casualties on an ATGM strike is essentially impossible.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-intel-says-gaza-hospital-185354789.html
US intelligence estimated about 100–300 deaths; Human Rights Watch considered 471 implausibly high but concluded that many civilians were killed.
My guess is that the system assigns buckets, similar to: 1-10, 10-50, 50-200, 200-500 and just uses the upper limit. But it is also pulled out of an orifice like your guess.
Additionally:
The 500 figure appears as one specific allegation from one source: that approval was given for a strike with an expected NAZA of 500 for one Hamas member.
So it is not something that is repeated all the time in the movie. It is a specific claim from a specific source.
Extra additionally, how do you know it is ATGM strike?
With zero proof of that given
There is no publicly verifiable identity, because the sources are anonymous. That's true.
The Guardian says the investigation involved 100+ sources and specifically says these included senior commanders involved in authorizing strikes, with sources covering intelligence, operations and final authorization.
Independent UN reporting supports NAZA's claims of mass AI-generated targeting, minimal human review, increased acceptable civilian-casualty thresholds, and tracking targets to family homes. Amnesty independently documents the resulting pattern of enormous civilian harm and destruction.
Comparing:
"IDF is most moral army in the world and thus has done everything to reduce harm to civilians and thus unnecessary deaths did not occur or was minimal"
to
Soldier testimony, doctors without borders, amnesty, UN and others as well as simply having observed the killing from afar shows a complete destruction of Gaza and its people. An excessive and disproportionate use of deadly force.
I would tend to trust my own lying eyes as well as international organizations over Israeli propaganda.
•
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 191∆ 22h ago
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-intel-says-gaza-hospital-185354789.html US intelligence estimated about 100–300 deaths; Human Rights Watch considered 471 implausibly high but concluded that many civilians were killed.
Why are you linking to an obsolete article? The blast at the Al-Ahli al-Arabi Hospital was found to be from a PIJ rocket.
My guess is that the system assigns buckets, similar to: 1-10, 10-50, 50-200, 200-500 and just uses the upper limit.
Unless these buckets are rounding up form 50 to 500, there is no way that makes sense with ATGMs.
The 500 figure appears as one specific allegation from one source: that approval was given for a strike with an expected NAZA of 500 for one Hamas member.
Which strike exactly? Is this Hamas member standing in a dense crowd and everyone is drenched in gasoline? Numbers have to be plausible.
Extra additionally, how do you know it is ATGM strike?
Because ATGMs are 99% of these assassination strikes, they are cheap, accurate, deadly enough and convenient.
•
u/martindukz 21h ago
Why are you linking to an obsolete article? The blast at the Al-Ahli al-Arabi Hospital was found to be from a PIJ rocket.
Source?
Unless these buckets are rounding up form 50 to 500, there is no way that makes sense with ATGMs.
What is your source for ATGM?
Which strike exactly? Is this Hamas member standing in a dense crowd and everyone is drenched in gasoline? Numbers have to be plausible.
So you agree that it was one claim? And we don't know what the range was?
Additionally we do not know whether strikes could also be bombing raid and how many bombs... But focus on agreeing on the facts:
So you agree this was just one soldier claiming this and it could be an upper bound? (I.e. not translatable to an exact number of casualties)
Another point, casualties is not only killed, but also wounded.Because ATGMs are 99% of these assassination strikes, they are cheap, accurate, deadly enough and convenient.
What are you basing that on? Source?
•
u/martindukz 23h ago
The claim about “about 10 killed” is simply wrong based on the evidence I can find.
US intelligence estimated about 100–300 deaths; Human Rights Watch considered 471 implausibly high but concluded that many civilians were killed.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-intel-says-gaza-hospital-185354789.html
•
u/martindukz 23h ago
Not really a rebuke to mention the example from the post..
What claims in the documentary do you view as correct?
What claims are not correct? (and please take into consideration what I wrote above)
2
1d ago edited 15h ago
[deleted]
•
u/martindukz 23h ago
I don't really see what you write as trying to change my view? :-D
Or am overlooking it?
•
23h ago edited 15h ago
[deleted]
•
u/martindukz 23h ago
It should be really easy for IDF to publish these stats...
They don't/won't.
Interesting stats would be distribution of:
- "Hamas operative likelyhood"-scores for approved targets.
- How many targets were overruled by a person? (remember only 85% precise)
- Average NAZA number for strikes approved + distribution by Naza number.
And probably more.
That this is not publicly available make me likely to trust the claims from the documentary.
•
u/cbr777 1∆ 22h ago
The IDF has no obligation to publish anything, it's on the makers of the documentary to prove their assertions, not on the IDF to disprove them.
•
u/martindukz 21h ago
That depends.
It is difficult for the public or other countries to evaluate whether the use of force is proportionate. And I think the consensus is that it is not.
IDF could publish these stats to provide context for their processes and efficacy of them.
The documentary has used statements from and interviews with IDF personnel. That is claims, but trustworthy claims given the data from reports from other organizations.
•
u/cbr777 1∆ 21h ago
The job of the IDF is to fight a war in the best way possible, not to divulge operational and techological details to the public, foreign public at that, in the middle of a war.
No other country and no other army would do it, so why do you expect the IDF to do so?
•
u/martindukz 20h ago
As i wrote in other comment:
During the US-led war against ISIS, CJTF-OIR published monthly civilian-casualty reports while the fighting was ongoing. These included things like:
- total coalition strikes
- number of civilian-casualty allegations received
- how many were investigated
- how many were assessed as credible/non-credible
- estimated civilians killed
- descriptions of individual strikes and what went wrong
One 2018 report, for example, disclosed that the coalition had conducted 30,738 strikes, assessed at least 1,124 civilian deaths, and gave numbers for reports investigated, rejected and still open
•
u/cbr777 1∆ 19h ago edited 19h ago
I'm completely unpersuaded by that, if the political climate in the US required such a report that is more about the politics of the issue in the US, not about the military expediency of making or publishing such a report.
That, in no way, creates an obligation for all future armies to release any such thing.
•
22h ago edited 15h ago
[deleted]
•
u/martindukz 21h ago
During the US-led war against ISIS, CJTF-OIR published monthly civilian-casualty reports while the fighting was ongoing. These included things like:
- total coalition strikes
- number of civilian-casualty allegations received
- how many were investigated
- how many were assessed as credible/non-credible
- estimated civilians killed
- descriptions of individual strikes and what went wrong
One 2018 report, for example, disclosed that the coalition had conducted 30,738 strikes, assessed at least 1,124 civilian deaths, and gave numbers for reports investigated, rejected and still open
•
u/MVP_Legend_87 21h ago
"The Guardian reports that claims were cross-checked against other sources, specific strikes and classified material."
And The Guardian is so reliable when it comes to Israel...
Oh right, that's when The Guardian just accepted Hamas number that 500 were killed, and that didn't actually happen.
Anonymous to us.
The journalists know who they are and checked their stories against other sources/evidence.
Do people seriously expect serving IDF personnel accusing their own military of war crimes to appear with name, rank and address?
If we don't know their ranks or their role we can't question the accuracy of what they're telling us though.
But that isn't the same as saying it doesn't exist.
That's quite the assumption it does though. They have no legitimacy here.
"No Israeli strike killed 500 civilians, therefore the claim that 500 civilians could be accepted is false."
This one makes no sense to me.
The allegation is about the estimated civilian deaths BEFORE the strike.
If you authorize a strike expected to potentially kill 500 civilians and it ends up killing 80, that doesn't magically mean the original authorization didn't happen.
What incident does this refer to? How can we check if this is legitimate without knowing where or when it took place?
"Hamas operates among civilians."
Yes. That makes targeting harder.
How does it answer whether Israel massively loosened its acceptable civilian casualty limits or whether targets received meaningful review?
Additionally the claim is that the identification of "hamas"-people is 85% precise, though that number is a claim, not a fact. But 15 innocents + families out of a 100 targets is very "non-precise targeting" for precise strikes.
The logic seems to be that all people targeted are Hamas despite of this.
Considering there is a 2.3:1 civilian casualty ratio, it seems pretty clear that Israel didn't loosen it's acceptable casualty limit. If they did what NAZA suggested then wouldn't the civilian casualty ratio be much higher?
Did Israel substantially increase how many civilian deaths it would accept for targets?
Were huge numbers of targets generated algorithmically?
Did those targets get meaningful human review?
Were strikes approved while knowing large numbers of civilians would probably die?
The answers to 1, 3, 4 and are no, yes, and no. If any of them were what you or NAZA were suggesting then the number of civilian casualties would be significantly higher than what they were. Like I said before, the civilian casualty ratio is actually quite low when you factor in Hamas was hiding in civilian infrastructure, which is a war crime. It's against International Law to do this because it increases the likelihood of civilian casualties. And even with Hamas doing this, Israel still kept civilian casualty ratio quite low.
0
u/Liad3008 1∆ 1d ago
There's another question of why should Israel or Israelis care about that movie - I mean, even if every detail of the movie is true, does it convince Israelis that Israel should have more lenient policies or does it make them roll their eyes?
•
u/martindukz 23h ago
What I have read about the movie is that it hits viewers, even genocide-non-believers, so could change the view in other countries. So pro-israeli people in the west, but maybe also (fingers crossed) people in Israel.
-4
u/Specialeyes9000 1d ago
Most sources for big stories are anonymous, that's what journalism is to an extent. People willingly misunderstood that in order to try to attack the content, but this isn't a new thing unfortunately.
4
u/HalfHumanHalfFork 1d ago
Israel has free media and officials constantly appear in it anonymously, but somehow there was never anyone who made any claims similar to what the things made up in Naza
0
u/Specialeyes9000 1d ago
Fair enough, that's not the point I'm making though. The filmmakers in theory could make things up, as could any media outlet in Israel or anywhere. But the fact they used anonymous sources isn't proof of that, that's my point.
0
u/HalfHumanHalfFork 1d ago
The combination of them being anonymous, the claims being so obviously made up, and that no other media outlet makes those same claims (anonymous or otherwise) reveals it at the BS that it is
•
u/martindukz 23h ago
Why are the claims "Obviously made up"? What do you base that on?
If you put the "500" claim aside, what claims are obviously made up?
•
u/Specialeyes9000 23h ago
Again, I'm not debating whether anything in this is true or not. I'm just defending the concept of anonymous sources not being the issue in general, and what an essential part f the journalistic process anonymous sources are.
-4
u/martindukz 1d ago
I agree. And it is not like it is without consequences for IDF soldiers to leak information or criticize Israel's actions in Gaza.
2
u/HalfHumanHalfFork 1d ago
An on duty soldier can't talk to the media, a reservist can, and reservists outnumber the on duty soldiers 3 to 1 during wars, so the vast majority can speak freely and still, somehow we don't hear those claims from them
•
u/martindukz 23h ago
reservists can speak freely
Can they?
Do you honestly believe it would not have consequences for reservists to criticize the effort in Gaza?
The IDF's own rules say both active duty and reserve soldiers are prohibited from speaking to the media about military/security matters without IDF Spokesperson approval.
And reservists have actually been dismissed from reserve service for publicly opposing the continuation of the Gaza war. Others who refused service over Gaza have been jailed.
So there is clearly a potential cost to publicly putting your name behind accusations against the IDF.
More importantly, the argument seems backwards:
The NAZA investigation reportedly spoke to 100+ IDF sources, including senior officers.
So soldiers ARE talking.
The fact that people alleging possible war crimes don't want their names published seems rather unsurprising, not evidence that they don't exist.
•
22h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/Specialeyes9000 20h ago
I'm talking about stories involving whistleblowers, I didn't make that clear but assumed it would be. Watergate, Pentagon Papers, NSA leaks, Wirecard Collapse, Cambridge Analytica etc
•
22h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 21h ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 18h ago
/u/martindukz (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) | [Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)