Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has demanded a criminal investigation into military personnel who gave anonymous testimony for the documentary NAZA[reference:0]. In a letter dated 11 October, he called on the Israeli Forces chief of staff, the head of Shin Bet, and the attorney-general to identify those involved and pursue prosecution for alleged information security offences, criminal defamation, and harm to Israel's diplomatic and security interests[reference:1]. He described the film as a false, misleading and programmatic libel[reference:2].

The documentary NAZA was directed by Israeli journalists Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor[reference:3]. It features 24 anonymous military and intelligence interviewees who describe practices behind Israel's air campaign in Gaza[reference:4]. The film takes its name from a Hebrew military acronym associated with expected collateral casualties[reference:5]. Contributors allege that intelligence systems used surveillance data and artificial intelligence-assisted tools to identify potential targets, including people in residential settings[reference:6]. One account describes an alleged approval for a strike expected to kill as many as 500 civilians in an attempt to hit a single target[reference:7]. Another contributor describes civilian deaths as occurring on an industrial scale[reference:8]. These are claims presented through anonymous testimony, not findings established by a court.

The Israeli Forces has rejected the documentary's account. In a 10-page response published on 1 October, the military said it had never planned, approved or carried out a strike in Gaza in which 500 civilians, or anything close to that number, were expected to die[reference:9]. It also denied that artificial intelligence independently selects targets or authorises attacks, stating that human intelligence analysts identify potential targets, while authorised personnel and operational commanders take part in the assessment and approval process[reference:10]. The military challenged the reliability of the anonymous testimony, arguing that the interviewees' identities, military roles, and knowledge of the decisions described cannot be verified from the material made public[reference:11].

The development raises a question beyond the film's disputed claims: whether the ensuing investigation will focus primarily on the disclosure of military information or also prompt closer scrutiny of the targeting practices described by the anonymous sources. Netanyahu's demand does not mean charges have been filed or that the interviewees have been found guilty of any offence.