Retired IDF Pilot Defends Military Conduct Amidst 'NAZA' Film Controversy

A retired Israeli Air Force lieutenant colonel, who has conducted thousands of sorties across various conflict zones including Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, and Yemen, has broken his silence following the controversy surrounding the film 'NAZA.' The pilot, who requested anonymity, stated that while war is hell, surrender is not an option. He addressed the film's portrayal of Israeli decision-making in airstrikes, particularly its depiction of civilian harm, which he believes unfairly demonizes Israel.

He explained that 'NAZA,' an acronym for 'incidental damage,' represents a quarter-century-old military doctrine developed by the IDF and Air Force. This doctrine accounts for the enemy's deliberate integration of military infrastructure within civilian areas in Gaza, such as placing rocket launchers in bedrooms or command centers in hospitals. The pilot emphasized that the enemy intentionally chooses to operate from densely populated civilian locations.

Detailing the strike planning process, the pilot described a rigorous procedure involving military intelligence, strict "incrimination" of targets, and multiple layers of approval. Uncertainty leads to target deferral, and final strike decisions are typically made by commanders of lieutenant colonel rank or higher. The pilot executing the strike is the fourth link in this chain. Before any strike, reconnaissance assets verify the area for civilians, and the pilot has the authority to alter or abort a strike if conditions are not met. Measures like "roof knocking" to warn civilians or reducing munition size are employed to minimize collateral damage.

He called the moments before a munition drop a "super-complex dilemma," where the operational achievement is weighed against the risk to civilians. The pilot recounted an instance where a strike was delayed for two minutes, during which time the targeted launch site fired rockets. He vehemently denied a claim within the 'NAZA' film about an approved strike that could have killed 500 civilians, stating such an event was impossible given the protocols.

While acknowledging the inherent risks and the tragic human cost of war, including the distress caused by civilian casualties, the pilot asserted that the alternative to fighting is unacceptable. He expressed pride in serving as a deterrent to threats against his country and family. He concluded by stating that while he doesn't harbor anger towards the filmmakers, he believes they erred in perspective and possibly lost their moral compass. He affirmed his pride in serving a democratic military that allows for critical self-examination and stated that he sleeps soundly, with no shame in the IDF's actions, though no joy in the necessity of them.