Israeli Society Struggles with Gaza War Reckoning Amid Film Controversy

The Israeli film "Nez'a" (Accidental) has ignited a fierce debate in Israel, touching upon the significant civilian casualties in Gaza, the responsibility of Israeli soldiers and society for the situation in Gaza, and the broader trauma of nearly three years of war. The film's release, shortly before what are described as crucial elections, has prompted strong reactions from political and military figures, as well as the public.

Reactions have ranged from calls to revoke the creators' citizenship to a special discussion convened by the IDF's Chief of Staff. Even an alternative prime ministerial candidate condemned the film, which the author suggests he likely had not seen, while calling the war "just and unprecedentedly difficult." Few have defended the filmmakers, Yuval Abraham and Rachel Shore, with most limited to asserting their right to free expression.

The article argues that the controversy distracts from the film's core message: the difficult content that Israeli society finds hard to confront. It draws a parallel to the 1967 "Soldiers' Talk" collection, which offered sharp self-criticism after a victory, suggesting contemporary Israeli society is less capable of such introspection due to decades of denial regarding the occupation, treatment of Palestinians, and the human cost of military actions.

The October 7th attacks, the article contends, deepened this denial. The government's response of "war and more war," despite unfulfilled promises and the continued presence of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, has led to tens of thousands of deaths in Gaza and casualties in other regions. The author emphasizes that beyond debates on methodology, the cumulative result of immense loss of life is undeniable.

The piece criticizes the focus on specific operational details like "accidental damage" or casualty ratios, arguing that the sheer scale of death necessitates a broader societal reckoning. It asserts that responsibility extends beyond decision-makers to the entire society that supported or enabled these actions, rejecting the notion that "no one in Gaza is innocent" while simultaneously blaming a single prime minister. The film, it is argued, merely documents individuals within a system that allowed these events and seeks to speak about their experiences, holding up a mirror to a society reluctant to look.

The author dismisses criticisms of the film's anonymity, noting that anonymous sources are common in journalism and academia, and argues that the calls to identify the filmmakers and interviewees justify the need for anonymity. The claim that the film was made "elsewhere" (Venice) and not in Israel is also refuted, as the testimonies were previously published locally with little attention. The argument that Israeli institutions haven't seen the film is presented as a symbol of denial and an admission of operating without full awareness.