- September 14, 2026
- 4:34 pm
- Israel
In Israel, there are calls to revoke the citizenship of directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor following the “international success” of the film NAZA. The petition accuses them of “aiding enemy propaganda, supporting BDS, and inciting anti-Semitism.” Culture Minister Miki Zohar has already demanded to check if it’s possible to start the procedure. But the law speaks not in the language of petitions: “defaming Israel” in itself is not grounds for revoking citizenship.
Author: Elena Gunko
«Revoke the citizenship of Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor — enough defaming Israel in the world». This is the title of the petition that appeared on the Israeli platform Atzuma on September 13, 2026, following the scandal surrounding the documentary film NAZA.
The text also begins without half-tones: «Citizens of Israel say: enough to the spreaders of lies against the state and the IDF».
The authors further explain why, in their opinion, the issue should no longer be about criticizing the directors, but about citizenship. While Israeli soldiers are fighting, the petition states, Abraham and Szor “systematically” use major international festivals — “from Berlin to Venice” — to “present Israel as a state committing war crimes.” Their films No Other Land and NAZA are called by the petition authors “an anti-Semitic political tool” that “directly serves enemy propaganda, supports BDS, and intensifies anti-Semitism against Jews abroad.”
These are precisely the accusations contained in the petition. As of September 14, there is no court decision establishing treason, espionage, or aiding the enemy in the actions of Abraham or Szor. It is especially important to separate assessment and established fact here, because in the last few days these two things have started to quickly mix.
However, dismissing what is happening as just another internet petition is no longer possible. After the award at the Venice Film Festival, the story involved Culture and Sports Minister Miki Zohar, and then the issue reached the Ministry of Interior.
From Berlin to Venice: where did this formula come from
The petition authors do not accidentally write “from Berlin to Venice.” Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor have already participated in the creation of the film No Other Land together with Palestinian directors Basel Adra and Hamdan Ballal. In February 2024, the film participated in the Berlinale and received the Berlinale Documentary Award. The official materials of the Berlin festival name all four directors.
Then the story became much more noticeable. At the 97th Academy Awards in 2025, No Other Land received an Oscar in the Documentary Feature Film category. In the official database of the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the winners are listed as Basel Adra, Rachel Szor, Hamdan Ballal, and Yuval Abraham.
So the petition correctly links Abraham and Szor with two high-profile international films, but caution is needed here: No Other Land was not the work of just this pair. It was created by four directors, and this is not a trifle when the text is built around the personal responsibility of two specific people.
With NAZA, it’s different. The official page of the 83rd Venice Film Festival names the directors as Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, the producers as The Guardian and JW Films, the duration of the film as 80 minutes, the languages as Hebrew and English, and the country of production as the United Kingdom. The first festival screening took place on September 10, 2026.
On September 12, the international jury of the Venice Festival awarded NAZA the Special Jury Prize — the special jury prize of the main competition. This is not a side award and not a prize from some public organization next to the festival: NAZA is precisely in the official list of main awards of Venezia 83.
And after this, the dispute sharply changed scale.
What NAZA claims and why the IDF responded so harshly
The title of the film is taken from the Israeli military abbreviation נז״א — נזק אגבי, “collateral damage.” The authors built NAZA around interviews with 24 Israelis, presented as soldiers, officers, and people connected with the intelligence system. A significant part of the interlocutors speak anonymously, their faces and voices are altered.
According to the filmmakers, these testimonies allow understanding how target identification systems worked during the Gaza war, how large arrays of intelligence data and technological tools were used, and what level of risk to the civilian population could be allowed when making decisions. Yuval Abraham explained the film’s task as an attempt to understand in as much detail as possible “how the killing systems in Gaza looked and how they worked.”
One of the most serious claims concerns an anonymous interlocutor talking about a possible strike, in which allegedly “up to 500 civilians could have been allowed to die in advance.” This part was particularly sharply rejected by the IDF. The army stated that the described strike “was never planned, approved, or carried out”.
The IDF also disputes the very method of building the film’s evidence base. According to the army, due to anonymity, it is impossible to independently verify the identities of some sources, whether they really served in the stated positions, and whether they had access to the information they talk about. The military separately notes that some statements attributed to junior personnel concern national-level strategy, which could have been far beyond their authority and knowledge.
There is another fundamental dispute. The film describes the use of the Lavender system and other technological tools, while the IDF emphasizes that decisions on the selection and approval of targets are made by people, not artificial intelligence. The army also states that it acts against terrorist organizations in accordance with international law and takes measures to reduce harm to the civilian population.
Therefore, calling NAZA already a proven indictment against the IDF is not possible. But simply dismissing the 24 declared sources with the words “it’s all lies” without separate verification is also insufficient. This is the unpleasant factual part of the story: the film presents a heavy version of what happened, the army disputes it, and a significant part of the “original testimonies” is closed to the public.
After the award, Zohar used the word “betrayal”
On September 13, Miki Zohar reacted not to the content of the film itself, but to its international success. He called NAZA’s victory in Venice “horrifying,” accused the creators of being willing to harm their own country for applause abroad, and used the phrase “an act of betrayal of the state”. Then the minister wrote that he intends to act immediately to revoke the Israeli citizenship of Abraham and Szor.
In the same statement, Zohar linked the story with the reform of Israeli cinema funding. According to him, this is why he sought changes in the system: so that Israeli citizens no longer finance from their pockets works that the minister considers attacks on IDF soldiers and the state.
But the next step is more important than a social media post. According to Israeli media, Zohar officially appealed to the Director General of the Ministry of Interior Israel Uzan with a demand to check the possibility of opening a procedure for revoking citizenship. He asked to conduct the check jointly with legal and security structures and to establish the origin of the film’s testimonies and materials: whether actions were committed during their acquisition or publication that could fall under treason or aiding the enemy during the war.
Here a significant difference in wording appears. “They defame Israel” is a political assessment. “Were actions committed that fall under a specific crime” is already a question that needs to be answered with evidence.
NAnews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency
This is why the NAZA story is now ceasing to be just a dispute about cinema.
In the petition, citizenship is described as a loyalty contract
The most interesting part of the petition is not even the accusations against the film. There is a phrase: «אזרחות ישראלית היא זכות שמגיעה עם חובת נאמנות מינימלית» — “Israeli citizenship is a right that comes with a minimal duty of loyalty”.
The next paragraph develops this idea even more harshly: a person who, according to the initiators, uses an Israeli passport to “seriously harm the country’s interests and endanger soldiers and citizens,” “does not deserve to have it.” After which, signatories are urged to demand that the Minister of Interior immediately revoke the citizenship of Abraham and Szor.
This logic is politically understandable: citizenship is seen not only as a legal status but also as a person’s connection with the country, implying a certain degree of loyalty. The problem appears in the next step. The state cannot simply take a moral formula from a petition and turn it into a legal basis.
In current Israeli legislation, there is indeed the concept of הפרת אמונים למדינת ישראל — “breach of loyalty to the State of Israel”. But the legislation explains quite thoroughly what is meant.
What the Citizenship Law actually allows
The main document here is the Citizenship Law, 5712–1952 — חוק האזרחות, תשי״ב–1952. The issue of revoking citizenship for breach of loyalty is regulated by Article 11. In the official legal materials of the Knesset, it is directly stated: an administrative court can, at the request of the Minister of Interior, revoke the citizenship of a person who has committed an act constituting a breach of loyalty to the State of Israel.
But then there is a list. It includes a terrorist act, assistance or incitement to such an act, active participation in a terrorist organization; treason; severe espionage; and also a separate case of acquiring citizenship or permanent status in a state or territory listed by law.
The terrorist part refers to another document — the Counter-Terrorism Law, 5776–2016 — חוק המאבק בטרור, התשע״ו–2016. This is a separate large law that defines the concepts of a terrorist act and a terrorist organization. The official legislative database of the Knesset tracks the history of the law itself and its subsequent amendments.
The part about treason and espionage leads to the Penal Law, 5737–1977 — חוק העונשין, התשל״ז–1977. For the purposes of revoking citizenship, Article 11 of the Citizenship Law refers to Articles 97–99 and 113(b). Articles 97–99 relate to crimes against the sovereignty of the state, waging war, and aiding the enemy during war; Article 113(b) — to severe espionage. These article numbers are listed in the Knesset’s legal materials on the procedure for revoking citizenship.
And here’s what is not in this list: “defaming Israel,” “causing reputational damage to the IDF,” “a bad film about Israel,” “receiving an award abroad”. Even the claim that the work was used by BDS or hostile propaganda does not in itself turn its author into a person who committed a crime under Articles 97–99.
This does not mean that a director, journalist, or anyone else receives immunity from criminal law due to their profession. If it turns out, for example, that classified information was obtained or transmitted in a way that constitutes a specific crime, then the subject of the conversation will indeed change. But first, such an action must be established. And then prove it, not the general harmfulness of the film for the country’s international image.
And the Minister of Culture cannot cancel anything here
There is another thing that gets lost behind loud words. Miki Zohar does not have the authority to simply cancel the directors’ citizenship. Moreover, even the Minister of Interior cannot in the usual order just sign a paper — and the next day a person ceases to be a citizen.
After the 2008 reform, the main mechanism for revoking citizenship for breach of loyalty was transferred to the administrative court. The application is submitted by the Minister of Interior, and it requires written consent from the government’s legal advisor. The legislative structure also provides for an advisory commission. These elements of the procedure are detailed in the Knesset’s position on case 8277/17.
Separately, the law regulates the situation if, after revoking Israeli citizenship, a person is left without any citizenship. The Supreme Court confirmed that this fact alone does not automatically make the mechanism illegal, but in such a case, the state must provide the person with a residence permit in Israel in accordance with the established procedure.
So the path from the phrase “I will seek to revoke citizenship” to the actual cancellation of status is not short. There must appear specific facts, legal qualification, the position of the Ministry of Interior, the consent of the government’s legal advisor, and then — a court decision.
So far, none of this is present in the NAZA case.
The Supreme Court has already considered such a measure — but on completely different facts
On July 21, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a fundamental decision on the consolidated cases עע״מ 8277/17 זיוד נ׳ שר הפנים and עע״מ 7932/18 שר הפנים נ׳ מפארג׳ה. Seven judges considered the constitutionality of the mechanism for revoking citizenship for breach of loyalty to the state. The court decided that the legislative structure itself is not unconstitutional.
But the factual background of those cases is very far from today’s dispute over documentary cinema. It was about people convicted of terrorist crimes and receiving long prison sentences. The Knesset’s legal management separately emphasized that these were the first two requests by the Minister of Interior to revoke citizenship under Article 11(b)(2).
Therefore, referring to the 2022 decision on the principle “The Supreme Court allowed revoking citizenship — so it can be revoked from directors” would be incorrect. The court recognized the tool itself as permissible. It did not say that it can be applied to any behavior that the authorities consider disloyal or harmful to the country.
There is also another, newer mechanism — the 2023 Law on Revoking Citizenship or Permanent Residence of a Terrorist Receiving a Reward for a Terrorist Act. The Knesset passed it with 94 votes in favor and 10 against. It concerns a very specific situation: a person was convicted of the corresponding crime, sentenced to actual imprisonment, and it was established that the Palestinian Authority pays them a reward for the committed crime.
This special mechanism does not relate to NAZA on the known facts. Mentioning it is useful for exactly one reason: when the Israeli legislator wants to allow an extremely severe sanction, it describes the conditions quite specifically.
Politicians are also not arguing about the same thing
The reaction within Israel was broader than Zohar’s statement. Avigdor Lieberman accused the directors of “turning the war after October 7 into a campaign against Israel and the IDF.” Former Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot formulated the claim somewhat more cautiously: he stated that criticism in a democratic society is legitimate, but there is “a huge distance” between it and “public defamation of soldiers for applause abroad.”
Knesset member Naama Lazimi took the opposite position precisely on the issue of citizenship. She called Zohar’s idea “madness in its purest form.” This is important: the confrontation is no longer along the simple line of “directors against the state,” and even people who may not like the content of the film do not necessarily agree with using citizenship as a political sanction.
Abraham himself, after receiving the award, also did not soften his wording. He accused Israeli politicians and journalists of “attacking the film without watching it” and urged the Israeli audience “to see the picture before drawing conclusions.” He also stated that “it is especially important to show the film to Israelis, as it concerns the actions of their own country.”
It turns out to be a strange construction. Opponents of the film say that its international success “strengthens anti-Israeli propaganda.” The filmmakers respond that the international platform is needed precisely because “unpleasant testimonies are being rejected within Israel.” And both sides believe that the problem is much bigger than the film itself.
What is known as of September 14, and what is not yet known
At the moment, there is the film NAZA and 24 declared sources, most of whom are anonymous. There is a specific denial by the IDF, including the rejection of the story about a strike with expected 500 civilian casualties. There is the official Special Jury Prize of the Venice Festival, Miki Zohar’s public statement about “betrayal,” his request to check possible grounds for revoking citizenship, and a public petition demanding to do so immediately.
At the same time, there is no court decision on treason by Abraham and Szor. There is no established fact of severe espionage. There is no public data that the Minister of Interior has already filed an application with the administrative court under Article 11 of the Citizenship Law. And, of course, the directors’ citizenship has not been revoked.
This difference is now the main one.
The petition authors have already given their own moral answer: if a person, remaining a citizen of Israel, causes the country such serious harm, as they believe, then they should not retain an Israeli passport. Miki Zohar posed the question somewhat differently — it is necessary to check whether the filmmakers crossed the line between freedom of expression and actions that the law truly defines as treason or aiding the enemy.
And the law requires an even narrower answer. Not “how much the film harmed Israel.” Not “how many times it was applauded in Venice.” Not “whether BDS uses it.” It is necessary to establish a specific action by a specific person and show under which norm it falls.
I, Elena Gunko, would not rush to appoint a winner to either side here. One can watch NAZA and consider the film one-sided, unfair, or destructive for Israel. One can, on the contrary, consider it a necessary investigation of what the state is uncomfortable talking about. Neither of these assessments in itself answers the question of citizenship.
And perhaps that is why the petition turned out to be more interesting than an ordinary outraged post on the internet. It brought to the surface a question that Israel will still have to deal with: is citizenship an unconditional status of a person before the state, or is the state entitled to consider certain forms of disloyalty as a breach of this connection.
Israeli law answers: it is entitled — but only in very specific cases.
Now it remains to understand whether there is at least one such case among the facts of the NAZA story. So far, this has not been proven.
