Venice’s cultural elite did not merely applaud a documentary. They celebrated a one-sided indictment that erased Hamas, dismissed Israel’s right to defend itself and transformed anonymous allegations into a verdict against the Jewish state.
Ron East | TheJ.ca | Sept 15, 2026
For approximately 25 minutes, they stood.
They cheered.
They waved Palestinian flags.
They applauded an 80-minute documentary accusing Israel of the calculated mass killing of Palestinian civilians.
Twenty-five minutes.
That is longer than many audiences have ever stood to honor a Holocaust survivor, a liberated hostage, a soldier who sacrificed his life protecting civilians, or a rescuer who ran into the killing fields of October 7.
But in Venice, the cultural elite found the strength to remain on their feet for nearly half an hour because the target was Israel.
The documentary is called NAZA. Directed by Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, produced by The Guardian and executive produced by Jonathan Glazer, it premiered at the 83rd Venice Film Festival on September 10.
The film relies on interviews with 24 Israeli military and intelligence sources whose identities are concealed. Their faces and voices were digitally altered, shielding them from identification, public examination, and meaningful scrutiny.
Yet the film presents their allegations with the cinematic authority of a verdict.
The film’s official promotional language does not describe an investigation seeking answers. It declares that NAZA exposes what its producers call Israel’s “calculated mass killing” of Palestinian civilians.
The conclusion was written before most of the world could even see the evidence.
That did not trouble the audience in Venice.
Neither did the absence of cross-examination.
Neither did the anonymity of the accusers.
Neither did the IDF’s rejection of the film’s central claims.
Neither did the reality that Israel was fighting a terrorist organization that deliberately embedded its fighters, weapons, command centers, and tunnel infrastructure inside one of the most densely populated places on Earth.
None of that could interrupt the applause.
The IDF says human personnel, not artificial intelligence, make targeting decisions. It says every proposed target must be assessed for military necessity, anticipated civilian harm and proportionality under the laws of war. It categorically rejects the allegation that deliberately killing civilians was Israeli policy.
Those are not trivial rebuttals. They go directly to the accusation at the center of the film.
But Venice was not interested in deliberation. Venice wanted condemnation.
There is nothing inherently illegitimate about investigating the conduct of the IDF. Israel is a democracy. Its military must be accountable, credible allegations must be examined, and any individual found to have committed a crime must face justice.
But investigation is not what unfolded in that theatre.
This was a prosecution followed by a celebration.
The ovation revealed something uglier than enthusiasm for a film. It exposed the grotesque moral double standard that governs the world’s treatment of Israel.
Where is the 25-minute ovation for a documentary exposing Hamas’s rape, torture, and slaughter on October 7?
Where is the festival prize for examining the Palestinian civilians who invaded Israel alongside Hamas terrorists to murder, kidnap and loot?
Where are the red carpets for films investigating the hostages held in Gaza, the families torn apart, or the Israeli communities burned to the ground?
Where is the cinematic outrage over Hamas building tunnels beneath civilian neighborhoods while leaving Palestinian families without bomb shelters?
Where is the standing ovation for the Israeli soldiers sent into booby-trapped buildings and terror tunnels precisely because Israel did not simply flatten Gaza from the air?
There is none.
The Jews are permitted to be victims, preferably dead ones. The moment Jews fight back, survive and defeat those attempting to murder them, the applause stops.
Then come the accusations.
Then come the tribunals.
Then come the films comparing Jewish soldiers to the Nazis who industrialized the extermination of the Jewish people.
NAZA reportedly includes interviewees drawing parallels between Israel’s conduct and the Holocaust. That comparison alone should have forced every serious viewer to pause.
Instead, they rose to their feet.
This is how modern Jew-hatred operates.
It rarely introduces itself with crude racial language. It speaks instead about “human rights,” “accountability,” and “international law,” while applying standards to the Jewish state that no other democracy confronting genocidal terrorism could possibly meet.
It removes Hamas from the battlefield.
It removes October 7 from the moral equation.
It removes the impossible decisions created when terrorists fight from homes, schools, hospitals, and mosques.
It then points to the consequences of that terrorist strategy as proof of Jewish criminality.
The Palestinian suffering in Gaza is real. Every innocent death is tragic. But compassion for Palestinian civilians does not require accepting Hamas’s propaganda, erasing its responsibility, or declaring Israel guilty based on selectively presented testimony from concealed witnesses.
Nor does the Israeli identity of the filmmakers make the documentary immune from criticism.
Jew-hatred does not become harmless when Jews participate in spreading it. An accusation does not become true simply because an Israeli delivers it to an audience already eager to believe the worst about Israel.
In fact, the participation of Israelis gives the international anti-Israel movement precisely what it desires: Jewish voices that can be displayed as moral permission to condemn the Jewish state.
“Even Israelis admit it,” the activists will proclaim.
The filmmakers will receive applause, awards and international prestige. Israel will receive another blood libel packaged as sophisticated cinema.
The Guardian, which produced the documentary, celebrated NAZA’s Special Jury Prize as recognition of “fearless, independent journalism.” But journalism tests allegations. It challenges sources. It presents material responses. It distinguishes evidence from interpretation.
Propaganda begins with a predetermined villain and constructs the story around the desired conviction.
The reaction in Venice suggests that the conviction was never in doubt.
The audience did not need to hear Israel’s defence. It did not need to consider Hamas’s methods. It did not need to remember the massacre that began the war.
Israel was accused.
For that audience, accusation was enough.
Twenty-five minutes of applause was not an act of compassion.
It was not a demand for peace.
It was not a defense of innocent Palestinians.
It was a public ritual in which the world’s only Jewish state was stripped of context, denied the presumption of innocence, and condemned for defending its people against a genocidal terrorist enemy.
Venice did not simply honor a film.
For 25 disgraceful minutes, it stood and applauded the demonization of Israel.
For 25 disgraceful minutes, it applauded the erasure of Jewish victims.
For 25 disgraceful minutes, it applauded the transformation of Jewish self-defense into a crime.
It applauded Jew-hatred and called it art.


Avi Abelow on FB
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0z6DMwfHuiBLnD4MXK55tkEmEoUqb6FcqFT9Vc6g4fyjFNGyYycxvuGvBJpadLw3jl&id=545522241
Query: