IDF gives rejection of 'NAZA' film claims, disputes civilian death ratios, AI targeting abuse

The IDF on Thursday gave its first comprehensive and detailed response and rejection of the NAZA film claims that Israel committed genocide during the Gaza war.

According to the IDF, its delayed response derived from the NAZA film makers neither providing them advance notice of the claims, nor permitting them to see the movie until recent days.

Only after viewing the movie, did the IDF feel it could provide a comprehensive more point-by-point response.

The core of the IDF's response is to reject three powerful elements of the NAZA film: specific rejections of all of the movie's claims about combatant-civilian ratios for targeting, rejecting claims that the IDF used Artificial Intelligence abusively to kill more civilians, and categorizing the IDF intelligence interviewees as being experts in a middle step of the targeting process, who know much less about the final step.

Regarding the combatant-civilian targeting ratio, the IDF rejected the film's claims that there was an attack with a 500 to 1 civilian-combatant kill ratio and claims that there were frequent attacks with 200 to 1 ratios against senior Hamas officials and frequent attacks of 20 to 1 ratios against junior Hamas officials.

Humans always make final call, not AI, IDF says

Moving on to the question of whether the IDF using AI in its targeting led to more significant abuse and killing of civilians because the system focuses on efficiency of killing Hamas officials and deemphasizes saving civilians, the military said that human IDF officers always make the final calls, not the AI.

The most serious problem the film presents the IDF is that its evidence is brought by 24 mostly IDF intelligence officials involved in targeting.

If they claim the IDF is committing war crimes – either explicitly or by implication (sometimes without realizing what their words imply) – how can the military deny the claims?

To this, the IDF said that the NAZA film is problematic because it does not reveal who is making the claims (the IDF officers' identities are obscured) or even which specific attacks they are referring to.

But more importantly, the IDF said that, now that it has reviewed the film, it is clear that the IDF intelligence officials handled targeting data midstream.

In contrast, the IDF said that only the targeting cells, which include lawyers and officials with a specialty at reducing civilian harm factors, know how the final decisions are made, and not the intelligence officials who find the targets and label them at targetable.

Ratios on documents do not represent actual ratios used in strikes, IDF claims

Already early in the war, The Jerusalem Post had multiple exclusive discussions with IDF legal officials who explained that if there are documents which mention 100 to 1 or 20 to 1 as ratios, they are basically never used, but meant as maximums that cannot even be considered, the same way that the Israeli justice system has maximum punishments which courts almost never use, preferring to hand down punishments often that are half as long or even two-thirds shorter.

So a document with a 20 to 1 ratio cutoff, could lead to an actual attack with a 5 to 1 or 7 to 1 ratio.

A document with a 100 to 1 ratio cut off against a top Hamas official like Hamas military chief Mohammed Deif or Gaza Brigade Chief Ahmad Randur could lead to an attack with a 70 to 1 or 30 to 1 ratio, depending on the circumstances.

The IDF statement said, "The film NAZA presents a distorted, misleading, and unrealistic picture of the IDF’s target planning and strike processes. The film’s narrative is based on fundamental factual errors stemming from a skewed and manipulative portrayal."

Next the IDF stated, "Binding IDF directives explicitly, comprehensively, and clearly distinguish between terrorists and uninvolved civilians in Gaza. IDF strike processes are entirely based on this distinction; they prohibit targeting civilians and mandate minimizing the risk of harm to them to the greatest extent possible.

"The IDF has never planned, authorized, or carried out any strike in Gaza where the expected outcome was the death of 500 civilians or a number approaching that figure. Nor has there ever been a serious allegation that an IDF strike caused a death toll of that magnitude or anything close to it," stated the IDF.

Further, the IDF noted, "Artificial intelligence has never independently selected targets for IDF strikes. Target identification is performed solely by qualified intelligence officers, strike planning is carried out by relevant professionals, and the decision to strike targets is made by operational commanders."

"Binding IDF directives have never granted automatic authorization for strikes on targets that endanger a predetermined number of civilians (such as 20 civilians when striking a low-ranking operative or 200 civilians when striking a senior commander, as claimed by the individual in the film)," asserted the IDF.

In addition, the IDF said regarding its Lavender AI targeting program that, "'Lavender' is not a list of targets pre-approved for attack, but rather a database designed to assist intelligence analysts.

"Binding IDF directives do not permit treating an evacuation warning issued for a specific area as authorization to conduct strikes there while disregarding the presence of civilians who have remained in the area," continued the IDF.

Moreover, the IDF stated, "The IDF does not ignore the consequences of its strikes; rather, it acts to examine them -including instances of unintended harm to civilians - contrary to the film's claims. This examination process drives the investigation of hundreds of combat incidents and serves as a basis for deriving lessons learned."

To date, the IDF has said that it has opened over 150 criminal probes into its soldiers conduct of the war in Gaza, and over 3,000 disciplinary probes.

Interviewees only address preliminary stages of Gaza strikes, IDF says

Next, the IDF said, "The numerous errors stem, in part, from the fact that the interviewees - presented as former IDF Intelligence Corps personnel - typically address only limited, preliminary intelligence-related stages."

"They do not address the far broader process of strike planning and authorization, which falls outside the Intelligence Corps' purview and is instead the responsibility of the operational bodies that manage and execute strike operations. Consequently, it is evident that in certain instances, the interviewees offer speculations and impressions entirely devoid of factual basis," noted the IDF.

The IDF asserted, "The filmmakers chose not to show many other parties involved in the full target-planning process - such as the professionals tasked with planning operations to minimize civilian harm, legal advisors who review planned strikes, and the commanders responsible for approving or rejecting them."

In addition, the military claimed, "The result is a highly inaccurate and misleading portrayal of reality. Furthermore, to align the presentation with the narrative the film seeks to promote, the creators omit contextual details essential to understanding the war in Gaza and the IDF’s conduct during it."

Regarding October 7, the IDF said, "The film fails to give due weight to the security reasons behind Israel’s actions in Gaza and the October 7 attack; to Hamas’s strategy of deliberately embedding itself within the civilian population - the root cause of civilian casualties; and to the myriad measures and methods the IDF employed to minimize harm to civilians - including pre-strike warnings, the selection of appropriate munitions and strike planning, support for the delivery of humanitarian aid, and more."

"The processes and decisions the film omits illustrate the practical implications of the IDF’s efforts to protect civilians - demands for additional intelligence, plan modifications, the cancellation of strikes, and the foregoing of military opportunities. These decisions restricted the use of force solely based on assessments of the risk to civilians," said the IDF.

IDF accuses film of distorting reality through editing, comparisons to atrocities

Next, the IDF claimed, "Outrageously, the film distorts reality further through the manipulative editing of interviews and comparisons to historical atrocities, while falsely and baselessly attributing malicious intent to the IDF. Even the film’s title represents an inversion of reality.

For example, the IDF explained that, "'Collateral damage' is a professional term used by law-abiding militaries worldwide; it describes the assessment of potential civilian harm resulting from a strike, serving as a basis for commanders to evaluate the operation's legality and to take measures to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible."

"Absurdly, the film portrays the extraordinary effort and level of detail the IDF invests in assessing potential harm to the population during an attack as indifference to civilian lives. In reality, assessing expected harm is a requirement under international law; the IDF conducts these assessments so that commanders can determine the legality of an attack, order additional precautions, modify the strike plan, or call off the operation - all with the aim of minimizing harm to uninvolved civilians as much as possible, just as IDF commanders have done many times throughout the war," continued the IDF.

Finally, the IDF stated, "The tragic consequences of war do not justify distorting the facts. A serious discussion regarding harm to civilians requires a faithful depiction of how decisions were actually made. The film fails to provide this; instead, it presents a simplistic manifesto driven by a clear agenda. It seeks to create the impression that the IDF operates inhumanely. In reality, however, the filmmakers can only create such an impression by distorting facts, omitting necessary context, ignoring previous IDF statements and explanations, and employing emotional manipulation and dramatic effects."

Despite all of the IDF's responses, it has still failed to give an on-record discussion of its actual combatant-civilian casualty ratios.

Further, the IDF has not truly addressed the vast cumulative number of civilian casualties from the Gaza war.

While around 25,000 of those killed in Gaza were Hamas according to IDF estimates, and anecdotally 3,000-5,000 more were Palestinians killed by Hamas rocket misfires or crackdowns on opposition, that still leaves likely 40,000 or more killed Gazan civilians.