Israeli Public Debates Film on Gaza Without Watching It
A fierce debate has erupted in Israel surrounding the film "Incidental Damage" (NAZA), which recently won a jury prize at the Venice Film Festival and received a lengthy standing ovation. While a few online commentators praised the film for bravely exposing alleged Israeli actions in Gaza, the vast majority condemned it and its creators for fueling anti-Israel sentiment globally. Popular poet Noam Horev even wrote a poem about the controversy, and Culture Minister Miki Zohar announced he would seek to revoke the creators' citizenship. Notably, the article highlights that most of these strong reactions came from individuals who had not actually seen the film, leading to a situation where public opinion is intensely divided over a movie whose contents are largely unknown.
The author questions what truly happened in Gaza, expressing confusion stemming from Israeli media coverage. While acknowledging the atrocities of October 7th and the general adherence to ethical conduct by the IDF, the article points to conflicting reports. Some media outlets suggest that "exceptions" to ethical conduct may have become the norm, with allegations of deliberate starvation policies and encouragement of civilian "voluntary emigration." Conversely, other outlets are criticized for seemingly celebrating Palestinian casualties and destruction. The author argues that Israeli media has failed to provide a credible and balanced picture of events in Gaza over the past three years, leaving a significant information gap.
Culture Minister Miki Zohar's threat to revoke citizenship is dismissed as a childish and legally baseless reaction, as the film was British-funded and outside his ministry's purview. The article suggests that a patriotic culture minister should have proactively engaged Israeli artists to promote the national narrative, especially after October 7th, rather than making empty threats. It notes that while Qatar's funding influences global discourse, successful Israeli productions like "Fauda" demonstrate the potential for telling Israel's story effectively.
The piece distinguishes between legal and moral responsibility for artists. While artists are not legally bound to public responsibility, the author questions the moral responsibility of "NAZA's" creators for presenting a one-sided narrative of the Gaza conflict, particularly to a global audience largely unaware of the complex circumstances. The author expresses a preference for airing internal Israeli "dirty laundry" domestically rather than through foreign-funded platforms, emphasizing a sense of Israeli identity and moral resilience.
Finally, the article critiques Israeli media for framing the debate around "NAZA" in a superficial manner, even before the film was widely seen in Israel. It argues that regardless of Israel's actions or the world's perceived double standards, Israel's reputation for morality has already been damaged, and films like "NAZA" may simply reinforce existing negative perceptions.
