John Spencer: The Evil of NAZA
In the entire film, there is no specific strike documented in enough detail to assess the allegation of Israeli misconduct. The viewer cannot reconstruct any attack mentioned, starting from the intelligence and going through approval to its outcome. There was and is no lack of acknowledged strikes. In numerous cases, the IDF has publicly announced what or who was the target and what the precautions were. Yet, because no strike is documented in that detail, viewers are never able to apply the elements of the allegation to anything but their own imaginations.Will former Hague prosecutor compensate captivity survivors?
NAZA’s filmmakers do not tell their audience that assessing expected civilian harm is a requirement of the law of armed conflict—and that formal collateral damage estimates are a regular practice of militaries across the world. This is a required step in the law of armed conflict’s core principle of proportionality. It requires those planning or deciding on an attack to assess the incidental civilian harm expected from the attack and weigh it against any concrete and direct military advantage anticipated to be gained from the attack. The nation or actor considering the strike must refrain from an attack if the expected incidental harm would be excessive in relation to that advantage. As part of the process, it must also take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize incidental civilian harm.
The U.S. military calls the process “collateral damage estimates” (CDE) and has long used intelligence and computer tools to conduct those estimates before an attack. U.S. military doctrine, such as the instruction titled “No-Strike and the Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology,” details how analysts are to use imagery and other intelligence to identify military targets and any civilian presence and/or protected facilities. Automated tools support the assessment, while weapons testing and computer models provide estimates of potential weapon effects.
Where casualty estimates are required, analysts consider building dimensions, construction, the area exposed to those effects, and estimated civilian occupancy during the day or night. The doctrine discusses conducting targeted intelligence collection about civilian activity and that it should replace general-population estimates when available. The CDE process also considers ways to reduce harm through weapon selection, timing, and other precautions. The doctrine explicitly recognizes that these assessments contain uncertainty and cannot predict the exact outcome of an attack.
Calculating expected civilian casualties helps a military meet its legal obligations, but the calculation alone cannot establish whether it has met them. It is not by itself evidence of an intention to kill civilians. All attacks should be assessed based on examining the intelligence, anticipated military advantage, precautions, and decisions involved.
The testimony of the anonymous sources in NAZA alleges deliberate killing, but the film does not supply the records and circumstances needed to test those allegations. Nor does it document the anticipated civilian harm, military advantage, and precautions for any strikes so viewers can assess whether an attack was disproportionate. Most of all, two directors and one anonymous soldier calling the war a genocide does not make that repellent and slanderous assertion true.
The film’s use of Holocaust-remembrance footage leads it into its most insidious strategy. By framing IDF service as a modern version of Nazi complicity, NAZA perpetuates Holocaust inversion. The Nazis constructed an industrialized, systematic killing machine to exterminate millions of defenseless, unarmed civilians, many of whom were citizens of their own country, posed no military threat, had no army, and held no hostages. That comparison erases the distinction between the extermination of defenseless civilians and a war against an armed enemy operating among civilians.
NAZA is misleading even in its title. It takes a military term for collateral damage and presents the effort to estimate civilian harm as evidence of an intention to kill civilians. The film’s flashes of destruction, political speeches, and Holocaust imagery carry the audience far beyond the targeting practices it claims to investigate. It is, instead, designed to depict Israel as monstrous and Israelis as Nazi-like villains. That is why the directors are so cavalier about misleading their audience about military terminology, the law of armed conflict, common military practices, and common sense. All they really want is for people who see it to come away from their disgraceful work substituting the letter “I” from “Nazi” for the “A” in NAZA.
The Jerusalem District Court has ordered Karim Khan, the former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, to pay NIS 25 million in damages to Eitan Mor and the families of Avinatan Or and Omri Miran, who were abducted by Hamas.How an evolutionary biologist is taking the fight to the 'mutating virus' of anti-Zionism
Judge Eran Shilo issued the default judgment after Khan failed to file a defense, despite having been duly served with the lawsuit.
The lawsuit was filed in August 2025, while Eitan Mor, Avinatan Or and Omri Miran were still being held captive by Hamas in the Gaza Strip. All three were released about two months after it was filed.
The lawsuit centered on the allegation that Khan's conduct in his role at the court in The Hague contributed to the hostages' continued captivity. The families alleged that he refrained from taking legal action against Hamas and Islamic Jihad figures whom they held responsible for holding the hostages.
According to the lawsuit, Khan waited eight months before seeking arrest warrants for three senior Hamas leaders: Mohammed Deif, Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh. It further alleged that he linked those applications to requests for arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
The plaintiffs also noted that Khan refrained from seeking arrest warrants for additional senior Hamas officials and Islamic Jihad leaders, including figures who were outside the Gaza Strip and involved in conducting negotiations with Israel.
The families argued that his failure to act against those figures allowed the terrorist organizations to continue holding the hostages. The lawsuit also alleged that Khan drew an improper moral equivalence between Israel and the terrorist organizations, and that his decisions were influenced by extraneous considerations.
The damages were awarded by default due to Khan's absence, rather than following a full examination of both sides' arguments in evidentiary proceedings.
Flipping the script and building the tool-kit
Rather than trying to convert every casual critic into an ardent Zionist, Expose Antizionism Now aims to equip ordinary people with the language, confidence, and conversational strategies needed to challenge anti-Zionist premises in daily life, whether at a PTA meeting, an HR office, or the dinner table.
“From the position of our organization, we do not need you to be a Zionist,” Spielman clarified. “We just need you to be against anti-Zionism. I’m not trying to convert you to Zionism; I’m trying to get you to recognize that there’s something a little bit sick about the anti-Zionist movement, and that that is a problem.
“We have been taking the bait for a long time,” Spielman continued. “Someone levels an accusation against Israel or Zionism, and because we feel passionately, we launch into a defense. That feels really good to us, but it doesn’t move the needle at all, because the person we’re talking to operates in a completely different factual and emotional universe. By accepting the premise that Israel needs to be defended, we validate the accusation.”
Spielman’s approach focuses on shifting the power dynamic of the interaction.
“Instead of launching into a defense, ask them: ‘Where did you get that idea? Do you know what anti-Zionism is? Do you know where that concept comes from?’” she suggested. “All of a sudden, they have to answer something instead of you. You aren’t going to change someone’s mind in one conversation, but you plant a seed. You make a crack in their worldview.”
To operationalize this approach, Spielman is building a comprehensive tool kit with her volunteer team, which includes their academic adviser, Prof. Andrew Pessin, founder of the Institute for the Critical Study of Antizionism. This includes downloadable community discussion kits, local training modules, and an AI-driven educational tool called Azaryah.
Azaryah allows users to chat interactively with an AI trained on the history, rhetoric, and tropes of anti-Zionism.
“It’s a partner for engaging on these issues,” Spielman explains. “You can chat with it about anti-Zionism’s history, how it functions as an ideology, and get feedback on how to have strategic conversations, set boundaries, or determine if you’re in a safe conversation. It democratizes the learning so people can engage with this information at their own schedule.”
Stripping the social permission: A strategic campaign
Operating in the Philadelphia area, a region experiencing acute political friction over anti-Israel activism, Spielman’s effort is scaling up as a grassroots start-up. Currently run by dedicated volunteers, Expose Antizionism Now is seeking seed funding and donor backing to expand its operations and deploy Azaryah at scale.
For Spielman, the battle against anti-Zionism requires walking away from superficial media outrage and focusing on long-term cultural change.
“We have to embark on that process in a very intentional, strategic way,” Spielman emphasized.
“Instead of playing Whack-A-Mole with whatever Ed Sheeran story of the week there is, we need to focus on what anti-Zionism actually gives people today. It feels good to them. It gives them a social community, a sense of righteousness, and access to elite spaces. It takes a long time for that to be beaten back, but we have to start beating it back.”
To those hesitant to confront anti-Zionist activism directly, she offers a stark historical parallel.
“A lot of the pushback that you sometimes get is, ‘Oh, well, I can’t condemn anti-Zionism because the anti-Zionists are proud of it,’” she noted. “Yeah, they are, because they think it’s a moral stance. But we have shown in the past that the Ku Klux Klan is not a moral stance. We can do this, too. We have that ability.”
Removing that social cover remains the ultimate goal.
“We need a reality where there is no more social permission, and certainly no social benefits, to being anti-Zionist,” Spielman concluded.
“Anti-Zionism’s outcomes are not freedom for Palestinians; its outcomes are the decimation of Jewish communities. It’s time we start beating it back in a deliberate, intentional, and strategic way.




















