The IDF’s sharp response to the creators of the film “NZA” after viewing it:
The film “NZA” presents a distorted, misleading, and unrealistic picture of the IDF’s target-planning and strike processes. The film’s narrative is based on significant factual errors resulting from a distorted and manipulative presentation.
In brief, contrary to claims made in the film, among other things:
1. The IDF’s binding directives explicitly, comprehensively, and clearly distinguish between terrorists and uninvolved civilians in Gaza. IDF strike procedures are based entirely on this distinction, prohibit deliberately targeting civilians, and require that the possibility of harm to them be minimized as much as possible.
2. The IDF has never planned, authorized, or carried out any strike in Gaza in which it was anticipated that 500 civilians, or anything close to that number, would be killed. At no point has it been seriously alleged that an IDF strike caused a death toll on such a scale or close to it.
3. Artificial intelligence has never independently selected targets for IDF strikes. Targets are identified solely by qualified intelligence officers, strikes are planned by the relevant professional personnel, and decisions to strike targets are made by operational commanders.
4. The IDF’s binding directives have never provided automatic authorization for strikes on targets that would put a predetermined fixed number of civilians at risk (such as 20 civilians in a strike on a low-ranking operative or 200 civilians in a strike on a senior commander, as claimed by a person in the film).
5. “Lavender” is not a database of approved targets for strikes, but rather a database that assists intelligence analysts.
6. The IDF’s binding directives do not permit treating an evacuation warning issued for a particular area as authorization to carry out strikes there while disregarding civilians who remain in the area.
7. The IDF does not disregard the results of its strikes, but works to assess them, including with regard to unintended harm to civilians, contrary to a claim made in the film. These assessments are used to initiate reviews of hundreds of incidents that occurred during the fighting and serve as a basis for drawing lessons.
Had the filmmakers conducted adequate fact-checking, verification, and source cross-checking in good faith, as is customary, they could have identified the significant errors presented in the film. The final result indicates that they did not do so.