Israeli Documentary 'Collateral Damage' Sparks Debate on Gaza War Tactics

A new Israeli documentary, 'Collateral Damage' (Nez'a), is igniting controversy in Israel and abroad by examining the Israeli military's targeting methods in Gaza, reportedly utilizing artificial intelligence. The film, which premiered at the Venice Film Festival and won a special jury prize, features testimonies from 24 Israeli soldiers and intelligence personnel, some of whom allegedly operated or assisted in the development of the systems at the heart of the film. Their identities are concealed, but their accounts, according to the filmmakers, paint a disturbing picture of how technology, intelligence, and assessments of civilian casualties intersect in strike decisions.

The film's title, a play on words referencing both 'collateral damage' and 'Gaza,' arrives amid global concerns about AI systems potentially harming humans. In Israel, the reaction has been sharp, with Culture Minister Miki Zohar calling the filmmakers 'traitors' and suggesting the revocation of their citizenship. Former football star Eyal Berkovic echoed calls for stripping citizenship from Israelis who harm the state. The filmmakers argue that anonymity was necessary to protect individuals who could face severe repercussions, including imprisonment, for revealing classified information, though the author notes this anonymity is a significant weakness, preventing independent verification of the claims.

The Israeli military has disputed the film's portrayal of its targeting methods, stating that human decision-makers approve all strikes. The author suggests that Israel's response should focus on addressing the claims rather than attacking the filmmakers' motives, noting that the military has invited the filmmakers to screen the film for the IDF. This move is seen as more constructive than the government's attacks on the creators' loyalty.

The core debate extends beyond the use of AI, questioning the information provided to human decision-makers and the weight given to civilian lives. Key questions remain about the acceptable level of civilian harm for eliminating a Hamas operative, how the importance of a target influenced this calculation, the certainty required regarding the target's presence, and the frequency of strike cancellations due to anticipated civilian casualties. The article contrasts the current lack of transparency with the relative openness during the Second Intifada, when a senior officer was dispatched to explain a decision to abort an attack to protect civilians.

The author posits that Israel's international standing has suffered due to a lack of transparency and a failure to adequately explain its actions in Gaza, especially in the face of Hamas's deliberate use of civilian areas for military purposes. While acknowledging Hamas as embodying evil and intentionally maximizing casualties to isolate Israel, the author argues that Israel walked into Hamas's trap by failing to provide sufficient explanations for the tens of thousands of civilian deaths. The article concludes that a detailed Israeli account of the events in Gaza is necessary for both domestic and international audiences, suggesting that such explanations are unlikely to come from the current government.