Netanyahu backs legislation that would strip ‘NAZA’ makers of citizenship

By DEBORAH DANAN

(JTA) — TEL AVIV — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he would advance legislation allowing Israel to revoke the citizenship of people who defame soldiers or the state abroad, citing “NAZA,” the prize-winning documentary accusing the military of knowingly killing large numbers of civilians in Gaza.

Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor pose with the Special Jury Prize Award for “Naza” during the 83rd Venice International Film Festival on Sept. 12, 2026, in Venice, Italy. (Stephane Cardinale – Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images)

Netanyahu said Wednesday he also planned to advance a separate bill raising damages in defamation cases involving the IDF or the state to as much as NIS 1 million, equivalent to $329,000.

In addition to the documentary, Netanyahu cited a 2025 remark by Democrats party leader Yair Golan, a former IDF deputy chief of staff, that “a sane country does not kill children as a hobby.” Netanyahu also cited the 2024 leak by then-IDF Military Advocate General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi of surveillance footage, which he called “fake,” from the Sde Teiman detention facility that appeared to show reservists abusing a Palestinian detainee. 

Netanyahu said the government would target those responsible “both in their pockets and in their citizenship.” 

He added, “Their place is not with us.”

Culture Minister Miki Zohar, who had earlier called for the filmmakers’ citizenship to be revoked, thanked Netanyahu for backing the proposal, saying it was “time to put an end to this disgrace.”

But President Isaac Herzog rejected the idea of stripping the filmmakers’ citizenship, telling Channel 12 that it was “completely irrelevant” and had “no chance” of happening. Herzog nevertheless called “NAZA” “a shame and disgrace” and accused those involved in its making of “tarnishing” Israel’s name abroad. 

Under current Israeli law, citizenship can be revoked only in narrowly defined cases involving a “breach of loyalty,” such as terrorism, treason or serious espionage, and the process requires court involvement. 

The measure has been used only exceptionally, including in 2002 against Nihad Abu Kishak, a senior Hamas operative, and Qais Obeid, who was associated with Hezbollah, and more recently sought against Israelis convicted of assisting Hamas. There is no precedent for revoking citizenship over speech or a work of art. 

In 1996, the Supreme Court rejected a petition seeking to force the interior minister to revoke the citizenship of Yigal Amir after he assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin the previous year. The court said Israeli society had ample other ways to express its revulsion and that further condemnation did not justify stripping Amir of a fundamental right, writing that the decision was made “not because of the dignity of the murderer … but because of the dignity of the right.” 

“NAZA,” directed by Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, is based on three years of interviews with 24 anonymous Israeli soldiers, most of them intelligence personnel, who describe their roles in surveillance, target selection and strikes in Gaza. The film argues that expected civilian deaths were routinely calculated in advance and, in some cases, accepted as part of the targeting process, allegations the IDF has rejected. 

Lt. Col. (res.) Sarit Zehavi, a former military intelligence officer who was involved in issues of civilian warnings and target approval, disputed the film’s interpretation of “NAZA.” The acronym is Hebrew military term for “collateral damage,” or the civilian casualties that are likely to come in attacking a military target. 

Zehavi, who said she had not seen the full film and was responding to its promotional material, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency the estimate of civilian deaths is used in the planning process as a warning about the number of civilians who could be harmed in a strike.

The IDF has “no intention whatsoever of killing civilians. Quite the opposite,” she told JTA. “The reason a NAZA estimate is put on a target in the first place is to serve as a red flag, so planners can work out how to avoid that high level of collateral damage.”

The IDF initially issued a detailed public rebuttal after the film’s reception in Venice. Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir convened senior commanders and the military advocate general, called the film’s allegations “blood libels” and a “deliberate distortion of reality.” He also ordered an examination of whether classified material had been disclosed and whether legal action could be taken against those involved. 

The military separately rejected the film’s account of its targeting practices, saying strike decisions were not made by AI but by human personnel, expected civilian harm was weighed against military advantage, and attacks were not approved when the anticipated harm was disproportionate.

The military later appeared to change course. According to Israel’s Channel 12 news, IDF and Foreign Ministry officials had concluded that the film had generated relatively little attention abroad but that Israel’s aggressive public response to its creators was drawing more scrutiny and prompting claims that the country was trying to silence them. Officials recommended lowering the temperature and focusing instead on rebutting the documentary’s allegations. 

“Right now, the aggressive responses coming from the State of Israel are moving the discussion away from the film itself and toward accusations that Israel does not allow freedom of expression,” an IDF official coordinating the response wrote in an internal message obtained by Channel 12. “In light of that, we are lowering our media profile.”

Channel 12 also reported that Israeli diplomats believed the Prime Minister’s Office was “fueling the internal debate around the film for political reasons and as part of an election campaign,” arguing that the government’s attacks were working against Israel’s interests abroad. 

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel also criticized the proposed measures, saying the government was entitled to challenge the film’s claims but using state power to threaten its creators or sources was “illegitimate and violated freedom of expression and freedom of the press.” The Committee to Protect Journalists called the citizenship proposal a “dangerous escalation” in efforts to intimidate journalists and filmmakers. 

More than 2,000 Israeli film professionals signed a petition supporting Abraham and Szor, warning that the campaign against them was nearing the legitimization of violence. Forty-three Israeli human rights, equality and peace organizations — including B’Tselem, Peace Now, Adalah, Physicians for Human Rights Israel and Breaking the Silence — also urged authorities to avoid prosecuting the filmmakers or their sources. Prominent international filmmakers and festival leaders joined their defense.