Israeli politicians and radical pro-Palestinian activists have both turned on NAZA, though for entirely different reasons. Neither side has actually seen the documentary.
This irritates me so much. The point of the Israeli anger at the film isn’t that it is critical, it’s that it is completely anonymous and that it debunks its own point. Why on earth would Israel need an AI if it was “targeting civilians”? All you would have to do is drop bombs on any crowd of people, and the death toll would have been at least 500k instead of 70k. Disappointing to see this “both sides” stuff, and a complete lack of understanding of why Gaza is mostly destroyed.
You’re completely missing the point Yuval has been making. Yeah, obviously Israel is not just randomly dropping bombs. There are a lot of reasons why that wouldn’t be possible. The film (and Yuval’s earlier articles) explain how a system that was originally created to manage and limit collateral damage was abused to allow, or even create high (and disproportionate) numbers of civilian deaths. If you haven’t, reading Yuval’s 2024 article on this which relies on some of the same sources might help understand this: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
Oh I did read it, and his previous articles were BS too. I remember when he tried to claim 83% of the dead were civilians because that’s all the IDF had names for. The fact remains that if the IDF had done anything close to what he is alleging the death toll would have been much greater
The 83% claim was bogus, I was talking about the Lavender article I linked to, did you read that? And no, the casualty numbers don’t disprove them at all. In fact esp the very high number of child deaths, and the fact that we know from other analyses that most of them happened in residential buildings in strikes with multiple other casualties is very much in line with the claims the soldiers he spoke to made.
I read the Lavender article and wasn’t impressed. A lot of his claims are quite stretched. I can withhold full judgement on the NAZA film until it is released
From what I can tell, the accusation in the film is that Israel calculated and accepted extremely high civilian casualties. This actually weakens claims of targeting civilians or genocide, because it implies that military targets were the point, and that Israel was merely disproportionate in how it achieved its goals.
Obviously I didn’t see the film, but the claim it makes seems to go a bit further than that. This is from @Peter Beinart’s review (on his substack). The film alleges that Israel purposely struck targets when they were with their families, ie it was using the temporary presence of militants to effectively generate “collateral damage” that did not really have a necessity. So the targeting of people linked to Hamas became an excuse for large scale collective punishment.
That is a broader and more damning claim, but it is also harder to substantiate. It would require evidence that Israel had other opportunities to strike those targets when their families were not present, and nevertheless deliberately chose to wait until civilians were there.
If I understand Beinart correctly, he is also challenging the claim that Hamas's use of human shields explains the civilian casualties. But these claims aren't mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible that Hamas routinely operated among civilians and used them as human shields, while Israeli forces in many cases deliberately chose to strike militants when civilians were present—or even deliberately targeted civilians in other cases. Establishing one does not, by itself, disprove the other.
That’s not really the point though. The point is that they struck targets where they knew they could be found. At the very worst they had a higher threshold for collateral damage in the early days, but that’s very different from “look how evil we are, we are intentionally killing families”. Yuval’s article ignores the fact that this may indeed have been the best way to vitiate Hamas’s offensive capabilities while minimizing collateral damage, he just picked the most sensational explanation.
Also, as has been said before, the first few months were a war, not a counterinsurgency campaign. The warfare style was completely different from the US’s strikes in Afghanistan, and the fact that a similar civilian/militant death toll as Mosul ended up happening suggests that the IDF’s procedures for minimizing collateral damage aren’t all that bad compared to the US
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, even though I disagree with some of what you said.
I must contest your arguments that the actions of the Israeli Defense Forces in Gaza rose to the level of war crimes. War crimes fit a specific legal definition and have specific prerequisites. Military actions can be brutal and inhumane, and still be legal if there was a military necessity.
Hamas’s use of civilian gatherings, hospitals, homes and ambulances—all while wearing civilian clothing—seem to be well-known among Gazans. In addition to that, Hamas’s tunnel network was bigger than the New York Metro, and was built beneath civilian areas in order to deter Israeli airstrikes.
None of this is an excuse for ignoring international humanitarian law, but Israel can’t allow an existential threat to use its own civilians as armor. Israel’s responsibility is to act within IHL, and mitigate civilian casualties. Multiple military experts—John Spencer, Andrew Fox, Douglas Murray, Richard Kemp—have attested that Israel has more than fulfilled its obligations to Gaza’s civilians.
None of that is to suggest that Israeli society doesn’t owe Gazan society a reckoning. Actions can be legal and necessary, and still be terrible. Speaking as an American Jew who supports Israel and who supports the war against Hamas, Israeli acknowledgement—once Hamas has been replaced and the rebuilding of Gaza has begun, once the war is truly over—of what the war has cost Gazans seems like a reasonable and moral thing to do. But Keep in mind that I have no contact with Israelis, and have no idea whether they would agree with me.
This, from @Peter Beinart’s review definitely sounds like war crimes. Not just disproportionate strikes (also war crimes), but deliberately engineered to create “collateral damage”. If the film substantiates this well, then that would be quite strong evidence of not just something “brutal”, but indeed illegal.
Hamas’s military strategy is designed to destroy as much as possible the difference between militant and civilian. Any attack on Hamas infrastructure was going to also destroy civilian infrastructure. Almost any attack on Hamas militants was going to put civilians at risk. The only way to avoid civilian casualties would have been to allow Hamas to attack Israel with impunity. The law recognizes that bad actors might exploit protected sites, and strips those sites of legal protection if they are used for military purposes.
That completely misses they key issue Yuval points out: that in many cases the IDF *waited* for their targets to be at home, to strike them among their family and neighbors, which completely perverts the idea of managing “collateral damage”. And that in many of these cases the IDF accepted very high numbers (up to 20) civilian deaths even for (suspected) low level militants identified by AI. The US had a non-combatant cut off of 30 for Osama bin Ladin, the mastermind of 9/11. To have similar numbers for a single Hamas grunt, or anyone whose cellphone was close to known Hamas members for too long, is prima facie absurdly disproportionate.
Palestinian “self-determination” - meaning the right of Palestinians to live in a dictatorship run by their own countrymen? Self-determination has always been spoken about as a collective right, when it means the exact opposite for individuals. Whatever you think about current Israeli occupation, a free Palestine would not be a bastion of freedom for the Palestinians. Certainly Gaza under Hamas rule was not.
Correct, but this un-free "Free Palestine" could still be better for both sides than the status quo. The concept of self-determination only applies to which state the people will be a part of--not how the state functions. Self-determination does not require democracy or freedom.
You think a Palestinian state would lead to peace? Hamas would take over the West Bank, massacre their opposition, start firing rockets, Israel would strike back hard. It would be Gaza writ large. The only way you could get a good outcome would be if the Palestinian mindset radically shifted.
Regarding self-determination, if it doesn’t provide actual people with human rights it’s a meaningless concept. I’d rather be an ethnic minority in a free society than an ethnic majority in a brutal dictatorship. If the latter is “self-determination,” count me out.
I don't actually think a Palestinian state will necessarily lead to peace. I agree that Hamas would have to be eliminated first, although I honestly don't know how to do that. I agree that a major shift in mindset would be necessary—not only among Palestinians, but among many Israelis as well.
My point about self-determination is simply that it means the choice you described: whether Palestinians would remain an ethnic minority within another state or become the majority in their own country. (even if they end up with a brutal dictatorship). That would still be self-determination. Self-determination is different than self-government.
Of course, Palestinians may view that choice very differently from how you or I would. Given the displacement and dispossession surrounding 1948, decades of Israeli military rule, the death destruction of the current Gaza war, and continuing daily violence in the West Bank, it's understandable that many Palestinians would place a much greater value on having political sovereignty of their own.
That's why, despite my doubts that Palestinian statehood by itself would produce peace, I don't see a plausible long-term path to peace that doesn't eventually involve some form of Palestinian statehood. The challenge is finding a way to get there that also protects Israelis from violence and gives Palestinians meaningful rights and political freedom.
No mention of the fact that Israel killed many of their own citizens or is culpable for 7 October. Sure to mention that Hamas is a terrorist organization and not a legitimate resistance to occupation according to international law. Both siding a genocide is pretty bad form.
Israel didn’t kill many of their own civilians (the Hannibal Directive only means that soldiers’ lives can be put at risk to prevent their capture, it doesn’t apply to civilians). Israel was extremely neglectful towards Hamas; that doesn’t mean Israel wanted a mass attack or a war, especially when Bibi built his reputation around keeping Israelis safe. And no one who knows what Hamas is or how they treat their own people and Israelis would consider them anything but a terrorist organization.
The Hannibal Directive never included civilians; it was only about soldiers, and it was officially repealed in 2017.
“‘Killed hostages on purpose’ is a very strong claim. There is evidence that Israeli forces killed hostages in the course of attempts to prevent their capture or to rescue them, but that is not different than deliberately killing them as the objective.
Once you say ‘on purpose,’ we are no longer simply talking about the Hannibal Directive. The directive permitted the IDF to take actions to prevent soldiers from being captured, even where doing so could put their lives at risk.
“Israeli politicians” versus “radical pro-Palestinians” - way to show your biases up front. I love how the men responsible for unleashing a brutal ethnic cleansing campaign and who control Israel’s apartheid regime are just “politicians” while the people speaking out against their crimes are “radical.” What a complete joke. The author should be embarrassed.
This irritates me so much. The point of the Israeli anger at the film isn’t that it is critical, it’s that it is completely anonymous and that it debunks its own point. Why on earth would Israel need an AI if it was “targeting civilians”? All you would have to do is drop bombs on any crowd of people, and the death toll would have been at least 500k instead of 70k. Disappointing to see this “both sides” stuff, and a complete lack of understanding of why Gaza is mostly destroyed.
You’re completely missing the point Yuval has been making. Yeah, obviously Israel is not just randomly dropping bombs. There are a lot of reasons why that wouldn’t be possible. The film (and Yuval’s earlier articles) explain how a system that was originally created to manage and limit collateral damage was abused to allow, or even create high (and disproportionate) numbers of civilian deaths. If you haven’t, reading Yuval’s 2024 article on this which relies on some of the same sources might help understand this: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
Oh I did read it, and his previous articles were BS too. I remember when he tried to claim 83% of the dead were civilians because that’s all the IDF had names for. The fact remains that if the IDF had done anything close to what he is alleging the death toll would have been much greater
The 83% claim was bogus, I was talking about the Lavender article I linked to, did you read that? And no, the casualty numbers don’t disprove them at all. In fact esp the very high number of child deaths, and the fact that we know from other analyses that most of them happened in residential buildings in strikes with multiple other casualties is very much in line with the claims the soldiers he spoke to made.
I read the Lavender article and wasn’t impressed. A lot of his claims are quite stretched. I can withhold full judgement on the NAZA film until it is released
From what I can tell, the accusation in the film is that Israel calculated and accepted extremely high civilian casualties. This actually weakens claims of targeting civilians or genocide, because it implies that military targets were the point, and that Israel was merely disproportionate in how it achieved its goals.
Obviously I didn’t see the film, but the claim it makes seems to go a bit further than that. This is from @Peter Beinart’s review (on his substack). The film alleges that Israel purposely struck targets when they were with their families, ie it was using the temporary presence of militants to effectively generate “collateral damage” that did not really have a necessity. So the targeting of people linked to Hamas became an excuse for large scale collective punishment.
That is a broader and more damning claim, but it is also harder to substantiate. It would require evidence that Israel had other opportunities to strike those targets when their families were not present, and nevertheless deliberately chose to wait until civilians were there.
If I understand Beinart correctly, he is also challenging the claim that Hamas's use of human shields explains the civilian casualties. But these claims aren't mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible that Hamas routinely operated among civilians and used them as human shields, while Israeli forces in many cases deliberately chose to strike militants when civilians were present—or even deliberately targeted civilians in other cases. Establishing one does not, by itself, disprove the other.
That’s not really the point though. The point is that they struck targets where they knew they could be found. At the very worst they had a higher threshold for collateral damage in the early days, but that’s very different from “look how evil we are, we are intentionally killing families”. Yuval’s article ignores the fact that this may indeed have been the best way to vitiate Hamas’s offensive capabilities while minimizing collateral damage, he just picked the most sensational explanation.
Also, as has been said before, the first few months were a war, not a counterinsurgency campaign. The warfare style was completely different from the US’s strikes in Afghanistan, and the fact that a similar civilian/militant death toll as Mosul ended up happening suggests that the IDF’s procedures for minimizing collateral damage aren’t all that bad compared to the US
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, even though I disagree with some of what you said.
I must contest your arguments that the actions of the Israeli Defense Forces in Gaza rose to the level of war crimes. War crimes fit a specific legal definition and have specific prerequisites. Military actions can be brutal and inhumane, and still be legal if there was a military necessity.
Hamas’s use of civilian gatherings, hospitals, homes and ambulances—all while wearing civilian clothing—seem to be well-known among Gazans. In addition to that, Hamas’s tunnel network was bigger than the New York Metro, and was built beneath civilian areas in order to deter Israeli airstrikes.
None of this is an excuse for ignoring international humanitarian law, but Israel can’t allow an existential threat to use its own civilians as armor. Israel’s responsibility is to act within IHL, and mitigate civilian casualties. Multiple military experts—John Spencer, Andrew Fox, Douglas Murray, Richard Kemp—have attested that Israel has more than fulfilled its obligations to Gaza’s civilians.
None of that is to suggest that Israeli society doesn’t owe Gazan society a reckoning. Actions can be legal and necessary, and still be terrible. Speaking as an American Jew who supports Israel and who supports the war against Hamas, Israeli acknowledgement—once Hamas has been replaced and the rebuilding of Gaza has begun, once the war is truly over—of what the war has cost Gazans seems like a reasonable and moral thing to do. But Keep in mind that I have no contact with Israelis, and have no idea whether they would agree with me.
This, from @Peter Beinart’s review definitely sounds like war crimes. Not just disproportionate strikes (also war crimes), but deliberately engineered to create “collateral damage”. If the film substantiates this well, then that would be quite strong evidence of not just something “brutal”, but indeed illegal.
Hamas’s military strategy is designed to destroy as much as possible the difference between militant and civilian. Any attack on Hamas infrastructure was going to also destroy civilian infrastructure. Almost any attack on Hamas militants was going to put civilians at risk. The only way to avoid civilian casualties would have been to allow Hamas to attack Israel with impunity. The law recognizes that bad actors might exploit protected sites, and strips those sites of legal protection if they are used for military purposes.
That completely misses they key issue Yuval points out: that in many cases the IDF *waited* for their targets to be at home, to strike them among their family and neighbors, which completely perverts the idea of managing “collateral damage”. And that in many of these cases the IDF accepted very high numbers (up to 20) civilian deaths even for (suspected) low level militants identified by AI. The US had a non-combatant cut off of 30 for Osama bin Ladin, the mastermind of 9/11. To have similar numbers for a single Hamas grunt, or anyone whose cellphone was close to known Hamas members for too long, is prima facie absurdly disproportionate.
Palestinian “self-determination” - meaning the right of Palestinians to live in a dictatorship run by their own countrymen? Self-determination has always been spoken about as a collective right, when it means the exact opposite for individuals. Whatever you think about current Israeli occupation, a free Palestine would not be a bastion of freedom for the Palestinians. Certainly Gaza under Hamas rule was not.
Correct, but this un-free "Free Palestine" could still be better for both sides than the status quo. The concept of self-determination only applies to which state the people will be a part of--not how the state functions. Self-determination does not require democracy or freedom.
You think a Palestinian state would lead to peace? Hamas would take over the West Bank, massacre their opposition, start firing rockets, Israel would strike back hard. It would be Gaza writ large. The only way you could get a good outcome would be if the Palestinian mindset radically shifted.
Regarding self-determination, if it doesn’t provide actual people with human rights it’s a meaningless concept. I’d rather be an ethnic minority in a free society than an ethnic majority in a brutal dictatorship. If the latter is “self-determination,” count me out.
I don't actually think a Palestinian state will necessarily lead to peace. I agree that Hamas would have to be eliminated first, although I honestly don't know how to do that. I agree that a major shift in mindset would be necessary—not only among Palestinians, but among many Israelis as well.
My point about self-determination is simply that it means the choice you described: whether Palestinians would remain an ethnic minority within another state or become the majority in their own country. (even if they end up with a brutal dictatorship). That would still be self-determination. Self-determination is different than self-government.
Of course, Palestinians may view that choice very differently from how you or I would. Given the displacement and dispossession surrounding 1948, decades of Israeli military rule, the death destruction of the current Gaza war, and continuing daily violence in the West Bank, it's understandable that many Palestinians would place a much greater value on having political sovereignty of their own.
That's why, despite my doubts that Palestinian statehood by itself would produce peace, I don't see a plausible long-term path to peace that doesn't eventually involve some form of Palestinian statehood. The challenge is finding a way to get there that also protects Israelis from violence and gives Palestinians meaningful rights and political freedom.
No mention of the fact that Israel killed many of their own citizens or is culpable for 7 October. Sure to mention that Hamas is a terrorist organization and not a legitimate resistance to occupation according to international law. Both siding a genocide is pretty bad form.
Israel didn’t kill many of their own civilians (the Hannibal Directive only means that soldiers’ lives can be put at risk to prevent their capture, it doesn’t apply to civilians). Israel was extremely neglectful towards Hamas; that doesn’t mean Israel wanted a mass attack or a war, especially when Bibi built his reputation around keeping Israelis safe. And no one who knows what Hamas is or how they treat their own people and Israelis would consider them anything but a terrorist organization.
The Hannibal Directive was repealed in 2017, though there are claims that Israel used it on October 7.
There’s plenty of evidence indicating they used it on Oct 7 and killed hostages on purpose.
The Hannibal Directive never included civilians; it was only about soldiers, and it was officially repealed in 2017.
“‘Killed hostages on purpose’ is a very strong claim. There is evidence that Israeli forces killed hostages in the course of attempts to prevent their capture or to rescue them, but that is not different than deliberately killing them as the objective.
Once you say ‘on purpose,’ we are no longer simply talking about the Hannibal Directive. The directive permitted the IDF to take actions to prevent soldiers from being captured, even where doing so could put their lives at risk.
If both sides hate it it must be worthy of being watched.
You are equating Ali Abunimah "offending" people with Israeli politicians actually constructing an ethno-nationalist military dictatorship, noted.
“Israeli politicians” versus “radical pro-Palestinians” - way to show your biases up front. I love how the men responsible for unleashing a brutal ethnic cleansing campaign and who control Israel’s apartheid regime are just “politicians” while the people speaking out against their crimes are “radical.” What a complete joke. The author should be embarrassed.