Jonathan Glazer calls Israel's retaliation over NAZA 'more venal' than expected

By Tom Whitfield

Jonathan Glazer has called Israel's retaliation against the film-makers of the award-winning documentary NAZA and the soldiers who appear in it "much more venal" than he anticipated. His statement lands weeks into a state campaign against the film and the people who made it.

The Israeli government has denounced the documentary since its release and pursued those involved. It has announced plans to strip citizenship from people who "smear" Israeli soldiers. It has accused NAZA's co-directors, Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, of treason. And it has ordered top legal and security officials to find and prosecute the soldiers and officers interviewed in the film for causing "harm to Israel's diplomatic and security interests."

The film itself details Israel's mass killing of civilians in Gaza. Its producer said he was "shocked into silence" the first time he watched it.

What does the retaliation actually consist of?

Three distinct measures, each escalating in severity:

• A citizenship-stripping plan targeting anyone who "smears" Israeli soldiers
• Treason accusations against co-directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor
• Prosecution orders against soldiers and officers interviewed in the documentary, on grounds of causing "harm to Israel's diplomatic and security interests"

Glazer's choice of word carries weight. "Venal" implies corruption — retaliation not as policy disagreement but as something bought and sold. He is stress-testing the official framing, and he goes further than calling the response disproportionate.

What does this change for the film-makers?

For Abraham and Szor, the treason accusation turns a work of journalism into a matter of alleged national betrayal. For the interviewed soldiers, prosecution orders convert testimony into potential criminal exposure. The citizenship-stripping plan extends the perimeter beyond the film's credits to anyone the government deems to have "smeared" its military.

What the source does not say matters too. It does not report whether any prosecution has begun, whether the citizenship plan has legal force, or whether Glazer made his comment in a specific interview or statement. The machinery is announced; the outcomes remain open.

What is clear is the trajectory. A documentary wins awards, documents civilian deaths in Gaza, and prompts a state to target its makers and witnesses by name. Glazer expected a hostile response. The retaliation, in his word, out-venomed it.

The next test is procedural: whether the announced prosecutions and citizenship measures survive legal challenge — and whether other film-makers weighing testimony from inside Israel's military read this case as a warning.