The IDF also said AI had never independently selected targets and that “Lavender”, the AI system cited in the documentary, was an intelligence-analysis database, not a list of targets approved for attack.
It also said errors in the film – which won the Special Jury Prize at Venice Festival – arose because “the interviewees, described as having served in IDF intelligence roles, usually refer to only limited, initial stages dealing with intelligence, rather than the much broader process of planning and approving strikes”.
The Israeli military added that the filmmakers did not submit their allegations to the IDF for response before publication and did not provide a copy of the film afterwards.
It also denied that strikes were authorised using fixed civilian-casualty estimates such as 20 civilians for a junior Hamas operative and 200 for a senior commander, as the film had claimed.
Several IDF soldiers walking with an Israeli flag in an excercise in Masada, Israel (Image: Getty Images)Getty Images
The IDF rebuttal read: “That [broader] process [of target selection] is not the responsibility of intelligence, but of operational bodies that manage and carry out targeting processes. Accordingly, it is apparent that in various cases interviewees raise speculation and assumptions without a factual basis.”
The IDF also accused the filmmakers of not including “many of the other individuals involved in the full targeting process” such as those “responsible for planning that mitigates civilian harm, legal advisers who review proposed strikes, and commanders responsible for approving or rejecting them.
“To fit the narrative the film seeks to promote, the filmmakers also omit context essential to understanding the war in Gaza and the IDF’s conduct during it."
This included Hamas’ deliberate strategy of embedding itself in civilian areas, the rebuttal added.
