IDF Rejects Claims in 'Noz' Film About Gaza Attack Processes

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has issued a detailed response to the film 'Noz,' systematically refuting numerous claims regarding the selection, planning, and approval of targets during the war in Gaza. The military asserts that the film presents a "distorted, misleading, and unrealistic picture of the target planning and attack process in the IDF," labeling its narrative as based on "substantial factual errors" and a "perverse and manipulative" presentation. The IDF's response was formulated after military representatives were able to view the film, initially at a screening in Bologna, Italy, following unsuccessful attempts to obtain a copy.

A central point of contention is the film's portrayal of artificial intelligence and automated systems in target selection. The IDF categorically denies that AI independently chooses targets, stating, "Artificial intelligence has never independently selected targets for attack in the IDF." The military clarifies that target identification is solely performed by authorized intelligence officers, with attack planning handled by professionals and final decisions made by operational commanders. Regarding 'Lavender,' a system mentioned in the film, the IDF states it is not an approved target database but rather a tool assisting intelligence researchers, distinguishing it from the operational decision-making process.

The IDF also explicitly rejects the film's assertion that predetermined civilian casualty numbers were ever authorized for attacks. "The binding directives in the IDF have never given automatic approval for attacks on targets that endanger a predetermined number of civilians," the response reads. Furthermore, the military denies claims of approving attacks where a massive number of civilian casualties were expected, stating, "The IDF has never planned, approved, or carried out any attack in Gaza where it was expected that 500 civilians would be killed or a number close to that."

The military further disputes the film's depiction of evacuation warnings, asserting that issuing such a warning does not grant a "green light" for indiscriminate attacks. The IDF maintains that even after an evacuation order, the presence of civilians is continuously assessed, and potential harm is evaluated before an attack is approved. The IDF also suggests that interviewees in the film, many of whom served in military intelligence, may only have had partial insight into the full decision-making process, which involves operational planners, legal advisors, and approving commanders.

Finally, the IDF refutes the claim that it does not adequately examine attack outcomes and civilian harm. The military states that it does investigate the results of its strikes, including unintentional civilian harm, which has led to the review of hundreds of cases during the war. While acknowledging that "malfunctions and errors" occur in combat and that suspected violations are investigated, potentially leading to disciplinary or criminal proceedings, the IDF also acknowledges the "heavy moral price" associated with decisions that may result in civilian casualties, while asserting that this moral difficulty does not prove illegality.