A new documentary has landed online, and its creators want to fight the narrative of a film that came before it. “NAZA: The Real Story” is a 49-minute rebuttal doc made by Israeli military reservists, and it is now being pushed by the Israeli Embassy to the U.S. The film was reposted on X by the embassy on Saturday, with the caption “a new Israeli documentary is setting the record straight.” The move is part of a broader campaign to reshape how the world remembers the war in Gaza.
The original film, simply titled “NAZA,” won a special jury prize at the Venice Film Festival. It runs 80 minutes and was shot at night on the rooftops of Tel Aviv, documenting killings of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. The title “NAZA” is an acronym for collateral damage, a term used by Israeli intelligence.
The Original Doc and Its Ovation
“NAZA” was helmed by Israeli directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, the co-directors of 2025’s Oscar-winning doc “No Other Land.” At Venice, “NAZA” earned a 24.5-minute ovation. It bowed at the New York Film Festival and is currently playing in cinemas in Europe and the U.S. It will be streamed for free on The Guardian website in late November.
The rebuttal doc is a direct response to that reception. It was made by Lt. Col. Roi Danino, Ariel Averbuch, and content editor Hagai Gutman. The three are not filmmakers in the usual sense. They are military men with specific political ties.
Who Made the Rebuttal
Roi Danino is a political candidate for the right-wing Israel First party led by Sharren Haskel in Israel’s upcoming Oct. 27 elections. Ariel Averbuch is a reserve major in the Israel Defense Forces, a patent attorney, and an ultra-nationalist influencer. Hagai Gutman serves as the content editor.
The trio’s backgrounds matter. They are not independent documentarians. They are soldiers and politicians with a stake in how the war is remembered.
The doc mimics the style of the original. Its website says the war in Gaza is “told through the testimonies of IDF officers who took part.” The blurb on the rebuttal’s home page says it “examines combat in civilian areas, the challenges of identifying threats, and the decisions made on the battlefield.”
The website also claims that Hamas fought from inside civilian areas with fighters in civilian clothes, weapons in homes, schools, mosques, and a hospital. It adds that the IDF operated under strict rules for opening fire. At publication, the website asserts more than 20 million viewers have already seen the doc.
The Embassy Push
The Israeli Embassy’s repost on X is the clearest sign yet that the Israeli government sees this as a strategic fight. By sharing the doc on a platform with a massive reach, the embassy is putting the rebuttal in front of a global audience.
The caption accompanying the post frames the doc as correcting a record that the original film distorted. That framing is the whole point of the exercise.
The War Over the Historical Record
The Jerusalem Post has described the ongoing clash as “a definitive, high-stakes war over who dictates the historical record to the international community.” The creators of the rebuttal are using digital influencers and grassroots international networks to push their footage to global policymakers and journalists.
The original filmmakers have remained silent. Their absence is notable. Abraham and Szor have not responded publicly to the rebuttal.
A Comparison of the Two Docs
| “NAZA” (Original) | “NAZA: The Real Story” (Rebuttal) | |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 80 minutes | 49 minutes |
| Directors | Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor | Lt. Col. Roi Danino, Ariel Averbuch, Hagai Gutman |
| Subject | Killings of Palestinian civilians in Gaza | Combat in civilian areas, challenges of identifying threats |
| Prize | Special jury prize at Venice Film Festival | None noted |
| Streaming | Free on The Guardian website in late November | Not stated |
The comparison shows the gap between the two films. The original is a festival prize winner with a long runtime and a clear moral stance. The rebuttal is shorter, made by military reservists, and explicitly positioned as a correction.
“a definitive, high-stakes war over who dictates the historical record to the international community”
That line from The Jerusalem Post captures the stakes of the clash between the two docs.
The Bottom Line
The rebuttal doc is a direct attempt to overwrite the memory of the war. Its creators are using their positions — military, political, and influential — to push their version of events forward. The original filmmakers have not responded publicly, leaving the field open for the rebuttal to establish itself.
The stakes are high. The Jerusalem Post’s description of a “high-stakes war over who dictates the historical record” captures the tension precisely. This is not a debate over artistic merit. It is a fight over who gets to define what happened.
The rebuttal’s creators are leaning on digital influence and grassroots networks to reach policymakers and journalists. The original filmmakers remain silent. That silence is a choice, and it is one the rebuttal’s makers are exploiting.
The doc is available online now. It will be streamed for free on The Guardian website in late November. The Israeli Embassy has already reposted it on X. The battle lines are drawn, and the record is still being written.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs the channels open for trade, diplomacy and compromise and is against foreign entanglements and trade wars alike. That same principle applies to foreign policy more broadly: stay focused at home, keep the channels open for engagement, and avoid getting drawn into other countries’ fights. This story is about a war that has already been fought, and the fight now is over who controls the telling of it. The paper does not take sides in that fight, but it recognizes the shape of it.
The creators of “NAZA: The Real Story” are using their military and political positions to push their version of events. The original filmmakers have stayed silent. That silence leaves room for the rebuttal to establish itself, and the creators are filling that space with digital influence and grassroots networks aimed at policymakers and journalists. The paper’s position on foreign affairs is about restraint, not dominance. In this case, the paper would rather see the channels open for both sides to be heard than see one side win by force of influence alone.
Readers should watch for the way influence travels across platforms like X and for how creators with political ties use their positions to shape public memory. The paper’s approach to foreign affairs is about keeping the lines of communication open, not about winning control of the historical record.
Source material: “‘NAZA’ Rebuttal Doc Surfaces Online, Made by IDF Reserve Members,” Variety.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.