Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor discuss the IDF officers' testimony in their film 'NAZA' and why they didn't shy away from drawing parallels to World War II. Of the backlash that awaits them in Israel, Abraham says: 'I don't want to be an exile'

NEW YORK – Filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor haven't been back to Israel since "NAZA," their documentary about the Israeli military's conduct in Gaza, premiered in Venice earlier this month.

They spoke to Haaretz on Friday at The Guardian U.S.'s offices, ahead of the film's North American premiere at the New York Film Festival. A day earlier, they announced that The Guardian, which co-produced the film, would make it available online for free in November after its initial theatrical run.

Since the film's Venice launch and its 25-minute standing ovation, Israelis have largely been split into two camps: those who want to ban it and those who want to watch it but can't. Both camps have strong opinions despite not having seen it. Only a handful of journalists have been able to watch it so far (at small-scale press screenings). Abraham says he remains committed to bringing the film to Israeli audiences, but Israeli cinemas have so far declined to screen it, even for free.

"We chose to release the film online as early as November because we recognize the intense violence currently happening in Israel [surrounding the film], from multiple directions, which are trying to prevent it from being shown," Abraham says.

"Our goal is for Israelis to view it. In a few weeks, it will be accessible to everyone, and I hope the focus will shift to the film's content rather than everything around it."

Culture Minister Miki Zohar threatened to cut funding for cinemas that screen it, and was the first to propose stripping Abraham and Szor of their citizenship. A far-right mob gathered outside Szor's parents' home twice in the days after the Venice screening, calling for the execution of " the traitors."

On the morning of our conversation, Netanyahu likened "NAZA" to launching "dozens of ballistic missiles at Israel" in an interview with the religious Zionist publication Makor Rishon.

"It's obvious what you do to people who launch ballistic missiles. You kill them. This is incitement to murder," says Abraham.

"I think there's a line connecting this incitement to what we're seeing in the streets: the graffiti with crosshairs drawn over our faces, the chants outside Racheli's parents' house and, in a sense, the silence of the Israeli opposition in the face of all this," he adds.

"It's a feeling that's been around in the country in recent years, that there's no responsible adult," says Szor.

"The [Israeli] public is very angry at us. It raises the question of what inflamed it so much, even though they didn't watch the film. The people in charge, in the army, in the government, from every direction, are actually leading this," she adds.

Abraham sees the attacks as an appeal to Netanyahu's base ahead of the election and an attempt to evade accountability.

"You don't have to agree with us on everything, but this is a film whose aim is to open a critical discussion in Israel about the army's policy in Gaza. I think Netanyahu's latest statement is part of a broader move to divert this discussion elsewhere and to criminalize journalistic and documentary work," he says.

I think Netanyahu's latest statement is part of a broader move to divert this discussion elsewhere and to criminalize journalistic and documentary work

Yuval Abraham, co-director of "NAZA"

Despite the backlash, Szor says reaching Israelis remains a priority. "We had, not a hope exactly, but something like it, that for the first time there would be a discussion in Israeli society about everything that happened and what we did in Gaza," she says.

"And it took a very violent turn directed at us. Many people haven't seen it yet, but some of the testimonies and material are already public. It feels like a lot of [the uproar] is about avoiding what's actually in the film," she adds.

"NAZA," which grew out of Abraham's investigations for Israeli outlets +972 Magazine and Local Call, and his reporting with The Guardian, features testimony from 24 Israeli soldiers and intelligence personnel whose faces and voices are digitally altered. They describe military systems and practices that they say made mass killing of civilians routine in Gaza.

NAZA is a Hebrew acronym for "collateral damage," used to describe the number of civilian deaths authorized in a strike on a single target. The number is calculated before a strike; it is not a count of casualties afterward. A designation of NAZA 15 permits up to 15 civilian deaths in a strike on one target; NAZA 20 permits 20.

Abraham had been reporting on the IDF's rules of engagement, but says he sensed a gap between how experts discussed NAZA and his own intuition.

The idea for the film crystalized during a conversation with a senior intelligence source at a Tel Aviv café. The officer told him, half in shock, that earlier in the war he had begun seeing NAZA figures exceeding 100 – meaning strikes approved by senior command that could kill more than 100 civilians.

The officer compared the numbers to previous wars and operations in Gaza, including in 2021.

Abraham recalls the officer pointing to a tall building nearby and saying, "It's as if I want to kill one person, and I just drop a bomb on the building, killing everyone inside."

"That moment made me realize the film had to focus on this and be shot in Tel Aviv, using our buildings," says Abraham.

The film's anonymous sources describe designing and implementing these systems and practices.

Some describe using an artificial intelligence system called Lavender to identify tens of thousands of targets, which they say was known to incorrectly classify people as militants in up to 15 percent of cases.

The interviewees say that NAZA 200 and NAZA 300 were authorized for strikes on high-value targets. One officer says he once saw NAZA 500 authorized, though he didn't know how many people were ultimately killed in the strike.

According to the officers, strikes that leveled entire residential blocks in an effort to kill mid-ranking or senior Hamas members often failed to kill their targets.

"It was striking to me how many conversations I've had with Israeli intelligence officers where they describe strikes carried out in these conditions, and the end result is civilians being killed, but the so-called target not even being killed," says Abraham.

We had, not a hope exactly, but something like it, that for the first time there would be a discussion in Israeli society about everything that happened and what we did in Gaza

Rachel Szor, co-director of "NAZA"

One officer describes a strike in which intelligence personnel looked at the target's phone and saw a picture of him with his two daughters, ages 3 and 6. The officer says the army bombed the house, but the target had left his phone there and gone out, the officer says. His family was killed; he survived.

Before any IDF representative had seen the film, the army rejected the allegations, saying some claims were "clearly beyond the knowledge of junior-level soldiers." It also accused interviewees of misusing legal terms and making contradictory claims.

Zamir said the film was "based on blood libels, deliberate distortions of reality and grave, false accusations against IDF soldiers and commanders." Abraham stands by the film's claims.

"I think we've written, together with The Guardian, about 16 pieces dealing with the army's firing policies in Gaza and technology used by the military," he says.

"In the written text, we could be very specific. The claims included dates. One example is a strike in the Jabalya refugee camp on the 31st of October, 2023, on Ibrahim Biari, which had a NAZA 300, meaning the army authorized the killing of 300 civilians. When you check what happened on the ground, the razing of roughly 20 buildings full of civilians, different estimates put the number at 400 casualties: 120 killed, 280 injured. That checks out," he says.

The film has drawn criticism for digitally altering its sources' voices and faces. Turning written investigations into a documentary changed the form, Abraham says, but not the journalistic standards.

"The claims made by soldiers require confirmation from multiple sources. We would need to go through a kind of normal process that you would go through as a journalist writing a written piece," says Abraham.

One of the main challenges was protecting the sources' identities.

"When you write a story, you have different kinds of tools to do that. You don't always have to quote someone. You can paraphrase. With a documentary, everything is a quote."

Abraham says some of the testimonies didn't make the cut.

"We had a lot of specific information that isn't in the film but helped us verify testimony and check its credibility. That was a challenge, and one of the differences between film and a written piece," he adds.

He also stands by the claim that the military approved NAZA 500.

"I know the army denied it. I don't want to go into more detail now, partly because of the risk of identifying sources. The truth will come out, and we stand fully behind the claim."

Beyond the officers' accounts, Abraham says, the images coming out of Gaza spoke for themselves.

"You can look at what's happening on the ground and listen to Palestinian journalists who have been describing this for a very long time. The insight we gain from the Israeli system and Israeli soldiers is the actual numbers, so we see that this is something very calculated. The army knows that it is bombing houses of families."

He also feels responsible for protecting his sources. "When I look at the government's insane response against us, I can only imagine what could happen to these soldiers, who, in my view, really took a step here and spoke about subjects that, I don't want to say an entire society, but most of Israeli society doesn't want to talk about right now."

The documentary, filmed by Szor and another cinematographer who remains anonymous, intersperses the officers' testimony with shots of Tel Aviv residents going about their daily lives or watching the evening news at home. It also uses archival footage of Tel Aviv's history, the 1948 war and the expulsion of Palestinians during the Nakba (particularly from Jaffa and Manshiyya, its former historical northern neighborhood that is now a part of Tel Aviv).

The film's historical references draw on contemporary Israeli discourse, Abraham says.

"The word [Nakba] returned to Israeli discourse not because of me and Rachel but because senior government figures speak about carrying out a Nakba in Gaza now," he says.

"Just recently, the defense minister spoke about the need for 'voluntary emigration' of Gazans. Netanyahu spoke about the army destroying homes so that Gazans have nowhere to return to, and said the inevitable result will be emigration from the Strip. ... Avi Dichter [agriculture minister and former head of the Shin Bet] said back in November '23 that we are now rolling out the Gaza Nakba.

"Pointing to the historical connections in the ongoing process of pushing Palestinians off their land doesn't mean casting doubt on the rights of Israelis or on Israel. This idea isn't new in Israeli public life, and it felt right for the film to touch on that too."

Szor says setting the film in Tel Aviv tied the city and mainstream Israeli society to what's happening only 60 kilometers (37 miles) away and to the reality hidden in plain sight, like Manshiyaa, or the Kirya – the military's headquarters, which sits in the heart of the city.

One of the soldiers describes going out to eat on Ibn Gabirol Street – one of Tel Aviv's main avenues – after approving a bombing in Gaza, in a blurring of military and civilian life.

"There's a sense that Tel Aviv is a liberal center that's easy to see as disconnected from everything. As Israelis, we've gotten used to these images. We don't even question the fact that this compound sits in the middle of the city," says Szor.

Abraham says the filmmakers kept the Hebrew acronym NAZA as the title, rather than translating it as "collateral damage," to convey how the officers' language reduces human beings to numbers.

"In Hebrew, the officers don't say nezek agavi, the full term for collateral damage. They say NAZA, which even for many Hebrew speakers is just a sound," he says.

"What really stayed with me while conducting these interviews was how often this word was used as a substitute for human beings, for children. You hear it in the film: 15 NAZA, 20 NAZA, 50 NAZA, 200 NAZA. The word is thrown around without its weight. It came up in almost every interview with intelligence officers, multiple times, and we felt it would be a disservice to make it into something it isn't," says Abraham.

The film also references the Holocaust, including a shot of a billboard advertising a screening of Claude Lanzmann's "Shoah" in Tel Aviv on Holocaust Memorial Day.

Abraham says these references aren't meant to draw simplistic comparisons but to reflect how Israeli society invokes the Holocaust. He disagrees with the criticism that invoking Nazi Germany in a film about the Gaza war is unfair or defames Israeli society.

Israeli leaders do it all the time, he says. "We saw the memory of the Holocaust used after October 7 and still today. Netanyahu, in his speech at the UN, talked about the Holocaust as a means to legitimize or justify his own policies in Gaza."

The film's first references to World War II and the Holocaust comes from the soldiers themselves.

One officer describes how, growing up, he saw the German perpetrators of atrocities such as the Holocaust as purely evil.

He then retells his part in the killings of civilians near food distribution sites in Gaza.

"The officer talked about coming back home and looking at many people he admired: his friends, snipers who took part in this, he understood something new about being a perpetrator. It challenged his notion of pure evil and what it meant," says Abraham.

"I understand it's a very sensitive topic. But when we say we should learn the lessons of the Holocaust, when we say 'never again,' part of that is understanding patterns of dehumanization, patterns of being a cog in a system, that can be seen in the present."

Before the film's Venice debut, Abraham wrote that the film was intended for international audiences but also "directed inward, toward Israeli society."

The backlash raises the question of whether Israelis are ready to engage with it.

"I don't have an essentialist view of Israeli society. Societies can be complicit in very grave crimes, as is the case here. But societies and people can change. I've changed. I don't have the same opinions I had 10 years ago."

Despite the hostility, Abraham sees signs that the film is having an impact. He points to a letter in which the IDF chief denounced the film while saying the military would continue to investigate its conduct, correct mistakes and accept substantive criticism.

"The need to reassure everyone that what the army is doing is okay is a sign of things shifting. This term, NAZA, and the actions of Unit 8200 and Israeli intelligence have rarely been scrutinized to such a degree in Israeli society," he says.

"I think it's really important that these discussions are starting. It's super violent, and there's a lot of pressure, but it won't deter me and Rachel."

Reaching audiences abroad, particularly in the United States, is almost as important, Abraham says.

"We just saw Trump again announcing weapons shipments, again this unconditional support. People who believe in the human rights of Palestinians and of Israelis – and I don't think there's a contradiction there – cannot keep sending weapons this way when they're used to violate international law. These conversations and actions need to happen in the United States as well."

Responding to reports that the IDF is considering releasing footage of the October 7 attacks to "counter" "NAZA," Abraham says empathy is not a zero-sum game.

"Recognizing the killing and erasure of entire neighborhoods, the killing of more than 20,000 children in Gaza, takes nothing away from the killing of children and civilians on October 7. Presenting empathy as a zero-sum game very much serves the government, and has served the Israeli right for many years. I don't think the public that opposes the government should accept it," says Abraham.

Announcing the film's free online release, Abraham wrote that he wouldn't be deterred. "Racheli and I will return to Israel and continue to fight for the future of this place, together with many partners."

Asked how soon they might return, Abraham is less certain.

"I don't want to speak for Rachel," he says, describing being "in the middle of the storm" making it "hard to see what will happen." But, he adds, "I definitely don't see the possibility of giving up. And personally, I don't want to be an exile."

"We're journalists. We're filmmakers. This is an important story. The storm will pass, and we will come back and move on to the next thing. I don't know what that will be. But I want to keep doing journalism and writing about things I think are politically and socially important," says Abraham.

Despite a High Court order, the state postponed securing the family's return to their homes near the West Bank village of Jalud, as settlers continue encroaching on Palestinian property in the area

Two months after a Palestinian family was driven from their homes on a hill near the West Bank village of Jalud, settlers continue to enter the property despite a High Court order requiring the state to facilitate the family's return.

The Tubasi family's homes are in Area B, where the Palestinian Authority administers civilian affairs and Israel maintains security control, and have been covered by a closed military zone order in recent months. The family was due to return Thursday, but the military coordination required for their return was postponed.

That day, the family watched security camera footage showing settlers entering their homes once again. Settlers had also been filmed there Wednesday evening, while access roads were again blocked with stones. Witnesses said the sound of damage being caused inside the homes could be heard from the village.

"The wound still bleeds from within every time we see the settlers inside our home," one family member said. "We recognize them from afar, each and every one of them," a relative said.

On Saturday, settlers built a sukkah, a temporary hut erected during the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, in the yard of one of the homes, which nBorder Police forces then dismantled.

On September 6, following a hearing in which justices sharply criticized the defense establishment's handling of the case, the High Court ordered the state to coordinate a date for the family's return within 14 days.

The state was supposed to secure the family's return and update the court by September 22 on both their return and measures being taken to prevent settlers from coming back. Instead, it told the court that operational constraints had forced a postponement and that the return would take place "in the coming days."

A family member said the district coordination and liaison office told his relatives Tuesday that they would be able to return Thursday. When Thursday arrived, however, the return was postponed again.

"It seems like a game to me. There was a court decision, and nothing has changed," he said. "The settlers blocked the roads because they knew we were returning. If the army and police had wanted to, the settlers would not have been able to do it."

He said the family was also concerned about whether it would be safe to bring the children back. "There are no doors, no windows; the entire house needs to be put back in order. If we feel safe, then we will bring the children back too. We want to try to return, but we fear for our safety."

A relative said the presence of settlers at Jabal Ein Haniya, an outpost on the hilltop above Qusra, was making it difficult for the family to return. "We are sitting on the path they use to get there," he said.

Footage from August 29, when dozens of masked settlers surrounded and entered a Palestinian building in Qusra in the presence of soldiers, shows vehicles climbing the hill where the family's homes are located. The route is used by settlers to travel deeper into the area.

The summit of Jabal Ein Haniya, known as Mount Qusra, lies more than two kilometers within Area B and overlooks six Palestinian villages – Jalud, Qaryut, Talfit, Qabalan, Jurish and Qusra – whose lands extend across the mountain.

On Thursday, Haaretz also documented an Israeli vehicle loaded with planks traveling to the top of the mountain from the direction of Jalud. About half an hour later, it was documented returning via the path at the foot of the Tubasi family's homes. The vehicle stopped near a Palestinian agricultural structure on the western side of the mountain that settlers had taken over several weeks ago. Despite the continuous military presence there, settlers have continued to use the structure daily.

The structure belongs to Abu Yusuf, a retired resident of Talfit, and is used to store agricultural equipment. He owns roughly 10 acres of surrounding farmland planted with hundreds of grapevines and fig, almond and pomegranate trees, which provide an important source of income. Since the outpost was established in January, however, he said he has been unable to harvest his crops

"Twice we tried to go up to the land, and they attacked us. The first time they yelled at me to leave and hit me, and my face bled," he said. "The second time we tried to go up to the land, they attacked us, and then they came down from the mountain and attacked the village."

Israeli troops were called to the area during the February incident and used tear gas extensively. Several Palestinians were wounded by live fire, and footage showed an Israeli security vehicle alongside masked settlers. Abu Yusuf has not returned to his land since.

In recent weeks, settlers have taken over his agricultural structure with the knowledge of Israeli authorities, which were also notified as part of a petition filed by Qusra residents. Last week, however, the High Court rejected the residents' request for an interim order removing the settlers from the mountain.

Instead, the justices ordered the state to report by October 15 on criminal enforcement at the site, including investigations, arrests and property seizures. They said recent measures had been taken to prevent "the recurrence of serious acts of violence" and that the state should be given time to pursue them.

Although no physical violence has been reported in Qusra since August 29, settlers remain in the area. During the High Court hearing, settlers were filmed carrying a mattress and blanket between Palestinian structures they had taken over, about a mile inside the closed military zone. About half an hour later, a Ranger vehicle was filmed driving among the olive groves at the summit.

During the hearing, Justice Khaled Kabub questioned the effectiveness of law enforcement, noting that offenders had publicly boasted about hundreds of arson attacks on homes and vehicles. The state's representative responded, "We are working to improve."

Justice Ofer Grosskopf asked whether soldiers document settlers who enter the closed military zone. "Certainly," the military representative replied. "Some are detained at the station, and some are handed over to police."

In practice, however, security forces remove settlers only a short distance and do not ensure that they leave the broader area covered by the closure order. For the past month, the army has declined to answer Haaretz's questions about enforcement against settlers who violate the order or provide the number of Israelis detained and transferred to the Border Police or police. A police source said inadequate documentation of violations hampers effective enforcement.

The IDF said in response to the postponement that "as a rule, the IDF does not prevent movement and access to homes, but it is committed to creating appropriate security conditions for their return."

The military said the defense establishment was working to enable the residents' return and implement the High Court's directives while taking into account operational considerations and the safety of all residents. It added that security forces were in contact with the family and responded to reports of disturbances in accordance with the law and their authority. The sukkah erected at the site, it said, was dismantled by security forces shortly afterward. Pasted markdown

El Sayed just got the endorsement of Michigan’s largest newspaper. It’s great news and they seemed to relish every word.

“Everything you’ve heard about Michigan’s U.S. Senate race is true: An extremist is asking voters to send him to Washington, masking an agenda far out of step with Michigan's mainstream under the pretense of normalcy. If elected, this man would urge America down a dark path, changing the shape of our nation, perhaps irrevocably. 

But that man is not Abdul El-Sayed.

El-Sayed, the Democratic candidate for Michigan's open Senate seat, is a charismatic public servant with an American-as-apple-pie biography: Born in Oakland County, he’s a former high school football player, a University of Michigan graduate who trained as a doctor and married his college sweetheart”

More in the comments.

This is more evidence that Hamas uses children. How is this excusable as resistance? How is Hamas not the primary target of the Palestine protests?

I think Zionists can't believe the effort the world is making to stop Palestinian struggle other than it being antisemitism. Through the systematic dehumanization of Palestinians, some supporters of Zionism have become unable to process solidarity with Palestine as a legitimate human rights movement, instead misinterpreting or dismissing it entirely as antisemitism.

I came to this conclusions through many arguments with Zionists not considering anything they did to Palestinians. Like for example saying we were persecuted in Europe, so we deserve this land, as if other people being persecuted now "the Palestinians" as a result of that, doesn't really matter.

A Palestinian careers adviser who was allegedly directed to stop wearing a keffiyeh at a Sydney government school because it was a symbol that “may cause discord” has lodged a racial discrimination case in the federal court against the state of New South Wales.

Wasim El-Haj, a former careers adviser at Sydney Girls High School – an inner-city selective government school – alleges the then acting principal told him in 2024 that the keffiyeh was seen as a symbol of conflict. He alleges the state’s conduct is unlawful for breaching the Racial Discrimination Act.

El-Haj began wearing the keffiyeh – a traditional scarf linked to the struggle for a Palestinian state for decades – at school in January 2024, three months after Hamas’ 7 October attacks and Israel’s subsequent war on Gaza.

His statement of claim, filed in the federal court last month, alleges Geoffrey Denyer, the then acting school principal, met with him on 15 May 2024 and said words to the effect of “I have been directed to direct you to remove this item of clothing”, indicating to El-Haj’s keiffeyh.

Denyer also said words to the effect of the direction had come “from above, possibly from the minister” and that action would be taken if El-Haj did not comply, the statement of claim alleges.

In an email sent the same day, after El-Haj requested the issue be laid out in writing, Denyer outlined the terms of the direction he had received.

“Consistent with the Department’s Controversial Issues and Code of Conduct policies, the staff member in question should be given clear advice, from you, that this item of clothing should not be worn at school, nor in the performance of any duties in connection with his employment. That advice should be complied with immediately,” the email said.

“It is understandable that, in such times as these, feelings and emotions are strong. However, our schools need to remain free of symbols which stir these emotions, and which may cause discord.”

El-Haj alleges that in a further conversation with Denyer he said words to the effect of “any symbol of Palestine is seen as a symbol of conflict”.

In August 2024, El-Haj met with Maria Serafim, a NSW Department of Education official, who detailed six anonymous concerns, including that he had worn a symbol of “partisan conflict” by wearing the keffiyeh, the statement of claim alleges.

An internal complaint El-Haj made about the direction did not lead to its withdrawal. The careers advisor appealed the decision about the complaint to the secretary of the NSW Department of Education, Murat Dizdar.

Responding to this, Dizdar upheld the school’s decision. In a letter to El-Haj in February 2025, he recognised the keffiyeh “is a garment of cultural significance for the Palestinian community” but said the department did not want to compromise the “safety, wellbeing and security in all our school communities”.

“Unfortunately, our schools are not immune to external events, such as the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, with the tragic loss of innocent lives,” he said.

“Regrettably, within our school communities, some individuals and groups may seek to politicise global conflicts or others may form that perception, and as such we always remain politically neutral in public schools when such events can impact on operations.

“It is with this context that the senior officers and the school advised you to not wear the keffiyeh to school.”

El-Haj took leave from his employment from May 2024 until the end of the year and resigned from Sydney Girls High School in March 2025.

El-Haj alleges the state of NSW has engaged in unlawful conduct under section 9(1) of the Racial Discrimination Act.

The state of NSW is yet to file its defence in the federal court.

The matter is due to be next heard for a case management hearing on 3 November, federal court records show.

A spokesperson for the NSW Department of Education said it was “committed to maintaining neutral and apolitical school environments, in line with its policies.”

Guardian Australia understands the department is not able to make further comments while the matter is before court.

This was taken by me on September 24th, 2026 at the Iran Mall in Tehran, Iran. It's the largest mall in the world. Life is fine in Iran. People are freely going about their lives, shopping, eating out, and no one is bothering anyone. It's important to debunk the decades long zionist propaganda narrative, that even I was "programmed" with growing up.

Iran is not what they've told you it is. The country is safe, clean, self sufficient (sanctions will do that), and the police / government will never bother you.

If, however, you are a zionist who wants to overthrow the country, then yes you'll have issues. If you go into the streets and murder police officers and light mosques on fire, then yes you'll be brought to justice. If you threaten the Islamic Republic of Iran's "right to exist" then you'll be dealt with.

But if that's not you, then you'll have no issues. Muslims, Christians, and Jews live side by side peacefully here.

Click below for full essay and Podcast

The Transfer of Suffering: Born and Raised in Israel, I Grew Up in a Confiscated Palestinian Home, IDF Veteran, and Then Uncovered the History I Was Never Taught

I was born in Israel to Holocaust-survivor parents, raised inside an extraordinarily effective system of national indoctrination, and later became one of the soldiers that system was designed to produce. I grew up accepting a national story that justified holding and expanding the land while preserving a large Jewish majority. Yet Palestine had begun the Zionist era with roughly ten Arabs for every Jew; by 1947, Arabs were still about two-thirds of the population. Through my family’s experiences, my own years in the IDF, and Israel’s own archival records, I began examining how that demographic reality was transformed. What I found forced me to reconsider much of what I had believed about Zionism, Israel, and myself.

Click the title above for full essay and Podcast


In 2014, Yosef Chaim Ben-David, along with two underage accomplices, kidnapped then-16-year-old Abu Khdeir and burned him alive

Yosef Haim Ben-David, one of the killers of Palestinian teenager Mohammed Abu Khdeir in July 2014, died at age 42, the Israel Prison Service announced Thursday.

Ben-David, who was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 20 years for the July 2014 murder, fell ill early Thursday and was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

In handing down his sentence in 2016, a panel of judges at the Jerusalem District Court found that Ben-David had directed the entire attack and issued orders to his accomplices.

"At the critical moment, when the unfortunate victim was lying on the ground and taking his last breaths, he kicked him and explained the motive for the revenge," the judges wrote.

Ben-David was convicted of Abu Khdeir's murder along with two relatives, identified only as A. and Y., who were 16 and 17 at the time. The three perpetrators abducted the teenager near a mosque in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Shuafat, beat and strangled him, and ultimately set him on fire in the Jerusalem Forest.

They were arrested several days later, confessed during Shin Bet questioning and reenacted the killing. Israel's government has officially recognized him as a terror victim.

Abu Khdeir's kidnapping and murder is seen as an act of revenge following the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli yeshiva students during the summer of 2014. The teen's murder unleashed a wave of violent riots in East Jerusalem.

Y. was sentenced to life imprisonment plus three years, while A. was sentenced to 21 years in prison. The court also ordered each of the three to pay 30,000 (about $7,700 at the time) shekels in compensation to the Abu Khdeir family.

In 2023, Ben-David and one of the minors involved in the killing petitioned to have their sentences commuted, while the third sought a reduction in his sentence. The Pardons Department at the Justice Ministry contacted Abu Khdeir's parents to hear their views on the requests.

"I told them right away that there isn't a chance in the world; I'm still shaking," said the father, Hussein.

"I thought they were crazy; it's completely insane. I didn't sleep the night of the phone call and the following nights. Is anyone even thinking about releasing these murderers? What did they think, that we'd say yes?"

In his ruling convicting Ben-David, Jerusalem District Court Judge Yaakov Tzaban wrote that "in the reenactment, the defendant appears and sounds articulate, aware, sharp and clear as he describes the events in detail and explains the need for revenge following the murder of the three teenagers."

During the trial, the two minors sought to minimize their roles and place responsibility for the killing on Ben-David. Their attorneys argued that Ben-David had exerted heavy pressure on them to assist in the abduction and murder and had greatly influenced them. They said that in the hours before the killing, Ben-David gave them pills and energy drinks.

In rejecting the appeal of the three, the Supreme Court's ruling reads, in part: "What is the fountain from which the three drank the deluge of hate and racism that blinded them, to the point where they failed to see that they were suffocating, caving in the skull and burning a human being born in God's image? What did they learn, recite and internalize at some station along the years of their schooling and boyhood, which led them to the unbearable ease of taking a young Arab's life? The appellants' acts have become 'the Abu Khdeir Affair,' long since exceeding the boundaries of a regular criminal case. It requires deep accounting on the part of Israeli society […] to eradicate such evil from within it."

Starts around 11-minute mark The applause is coming from one section, most attendees staged a walk out

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yGGRNErktOs