Legal Avenues Explored for Controversial 'NezA' Film

Following the release of the film 'NezA,' which has been described as false and inciting, Israeli military chief Aviv Kochavi has ordered an examination into potential legal action. Meanwhile, Minister Miki Zohar has called for the revocation of citizenship for the film's creators, Yuval Avraham and Rachel Shore.

The article analyzes the legal options available, concluding that standard defamation laws do not apply because they exclude speech against a defined public. A precedent was set with the film 'Jenin, Jenin,' where a ban was imposed only after identifiable soldiers featured in it were located. Revoking citizenship is also deemed unlikely, as current laws primarily target convicted terrorists or those who have demonstrably betrayed the state, not necessarily creators of critical content.

However, legal avenues may exist against the soldiers and officers interviewed in the film. They could potentially face charges under military law or the penal code for disclosing sensitive information, even if the information itself is false. The article notes that soldiers are considered public employees and disclosing information without authorization is a criminal offense.

Regarding the film's creators, the article addresses claims that their sources were from Unit 8200, an intelligence-gathering unit. It argues that Unit 8200 personnel are involved in intelligence collection, not decision-making on targeted killings, and thus cannot reveal decision-making secrets. The act of providing raw information to the filmmakers, however, could be considered a breach of secrecy, regardless of the information's truthfulness.

More severe charges, such as aiding the enemy during wartime, are considered unlikely to be applied due to free speech concerns and the difficulty of setting such a precedent. Other relevant sections of the penal code, like those concerning spreading panic during wartime or harming national security, are also discussed, though some are considered outdated or difficult to enforce in the current media landscape. The article suggests that sections related to obtaining or possessing secret information with intent to harm national security, or actions intended to damage Israel's foreign relations, might be more applicable.

Ultimately, the article posits that legal action could be justified under the 'foreseeability' doctrine, arguing that the creators should have reasonably expected their actions to cause harm to national security, even if they claim to be revealing truth. The piece concludes that while caution is necessary when balancing criminal law with freedom of expression, the latter is not absolute and can be superseded by vital national interests, suggesting that the film's creators may have acted criminally.