The film ‘Collateral Damage’ presents a distorted, misleading, and unrealistic portrayal of the target planning and attack process in the IDF. The film’s narrative is based on significant factual errors, stemming from a distorted and manipulative presentation.
In essence, contrary to the claims made in the film, including, but not limited to:
1. The binding directives in the IDF explicitly, comprehensively, and clearly distinguish between terrorists and uninvolved civilians in Gaza. IDF attack processes are based entirely on this distinction, prohibit targeting civilians, and require minimizing the possibility of harming them as much as possible.
2. The IDF has never planned, approved, or carried out any attack in Gaza where the death of 500 civilians or a number close to that was anticipated. At no stage has the IDF been seriously accused of an attack causing such a magnitude of civilian casualties or close to it.
3. Artificial intelligence has never independently selected targets for attack in the IDF. Target identification is performed solely by qualified intelligence officers, attack planning is carried out by relevant professional bodies, and the decision to attack targets is made by operational commanders.
4. The binding directives in the IDF have never automatically authorized attacks on targets that endanger a predetermined number of civilians (such as 20 civilians for the attack of a junior operative or 200 civilians for the attack of a senior commander, as claimed by a person in the film).
5. ‘Lavender’ is not a database of approved targets for attack, but rather a data repository that assists intelligence investigators.
6. The binding directives in the IDF do not permit treating the issuance of a warning to evacuate a certain area as permission to carry out attacks there while disregarding the presence of civilians who remain within it.
7. The IDF does not disregard the results of its attacks but acts to investigate them, including unintended civilian casualties, contrary to the claim made in the film. This investigation is used to initiate inquiries into hundreds of incidents that occurred during combat and as a basis for drawing lessons learned.
Had the filmmakers in good faith conducted adequate fact-checking and cross-referencing processes as is customary, they could have identified the significant errors presented in the film. The final result indicates that they did not do so.
The numerous errors stem, among other things, from the fact that the interviewees, presented as having served in IDF Intelligence Corps, generally refer only to limited and initial stages dealing with intelligence – and not to the much broader process of attack planning and approval, which is not under the responsibility of the Intelligence Corps at all, but rather under the responsibility of operational bodies that manage and execute attack processes. Accordingly, it can be seen that in some cases, the interviewees even make assumptions and express feelings devoid of any factual basis.
The filmmakers chose not to show in the film many other parties involved in the full target planning process – professionals responsible for planning that minimizes civilian harm, legal advisors who review planned attacks, and the commanders responsible for their approval or rejection. The result, as stated, is a very inaccurate and misleading depiction of reality. In addition, and in order to fit the presentation of events to the narrative the film seeks to promote – the filmmakers omit essential contextual details for understanding the war in Gaza and the IDF’s conduct during it.
The film does not give due weight to the security reasons for which Israel operated in Gaza and the October 7th attack, to Hamas’s deliberate strategy of embedding itself within the civilian population, which is the root cause of harm to the civilian population, and to the countless actions and methods taken by the IDF to minimize harm to the civilian population – including warnings before attacks, selection of munitions and appropriate attack planning, support for the transfer of humanitarian aid, and more.
The processes and decisions that the film refrains from showing illustrate the practical implications of the IDF’s effort to protect civilians – requiring additional intelligence, changing plans, canceling attacks, and foregoing military opportunities. These decisions limited the use of force solely due to the assessment of danger to civilians.
Inappropriately, the film deepens the distortion of reality through manipulative editing of interviews, and comparisons to historical atrocities, while falsely and baselessly attributing malicious intent to the IDF. Even the choice of the film’s title is a reversal of reality. “Naza” (“collateral damage” in English) is a professional term common in all law-abiding armies worldwide, describing the anticipated civilian harm as a result of an attack, as a basis for examining its legality by commanders and for taking steps aimed at minimizing civilian harm as much as possible.
Absurdly, the film presents the exceptional effort and level of detail the IDF invests in assessing harm to the population During an attack as indifference to civilian lives. In reality, assessing anticipated harm is a requirement under international law, and the IDF conducts this assessment so that commanders can determine if the attack is legal, order additional precautions, and change the attack plan, or cancel the attack, all in order to minimize the possibility of harming uninvolved civilians as much as possible – as IDF commanders have done many times during the war.
Several interviewees describe, in their own words, the moral weight stemming from participation in attack processes. This moral weight is real, and the IDF does not dismiss it. Decisions that may result in civilian casualties are among the most difficult that soldiers and commanders face, and the IDF expects its soldiers to feel the weight involved and act accordingly. However, the moral burden associated with such decisions is not evidence that they were illegal or reflected indifference to civilian lives. On the contrary: the moral burden reflects the seriousness with which the decisions were made.
The tragic consequences of wars do not justify distorting facts. A serious discussion about civilian harm requires a faithful depiction of reality regarding how decisions were actually made. The film does not provide this, but rather presents a simplistic manifesto driven by a clear agenda. The film seeks to create the impression that the IDF operates inhumanely.
However, in reality, the only way the filmmakers can create such an impression is through distorting facts, omitting the necessary context for understanding events, ignoring previous IDF publications and explanations, and adding emotional manipulation and cinematic effects. The IDF has acted and continues to act humanely, even if the filmmakers have done everything in their power to conceal this fact.
The IDF is open to hearing honest criticism of its conduct and attaches importance to drawing lessons from substantiated claims and continuously improving its operational methods. The IDF is subject to and committed to international humanitarian law, its operational procedures are designed to implement these legal obligations, and it operates dedicated units and mechanisms to minimize harm to civilians.
The IDF does not shy away from malfunctions and errors that occurred during the war, and these indeed happen in such complex combat. Suspicions of violations of the law or IDF orders are examined, and where justified, are addressed through disciplinary proceedings, criminal investigation, or other measures.
Contrary to custom – the filmmakers did not submit their claims to the IDF for examination and response before publication, nor did they provide a copy of the film after its screening despite the IDF’s request. Therefore, for the purpose of examining the film’s content, the IDF relied on a detailed review provided by a representative who attended a public screening, and was assisted by additional public descriptions.
The IDF Spokesperson’s Detailed Response to the Film ‘Collateral Damage’
