NAZA is the Hebrew acronym used by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to code collateral damage: a quantifiable and ‘acceptable’ loss of civilian life yielded while targeting suspected Hamas militants since the merciless Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7th, 2023 (Tapp). The significance of ‘NAZA’ was revealed by Israeli and Jewish filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor during the promotion and premiere of their new documentary–respectively titled NAZA itself–which, “details the systems behind Israel’s calculated mass killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza,” following October 7th (Bachega). The film itself has yet to be released for public consumption, but made its premiere at the Venice International Film Festival on September 10th, and has already drawn swaths of criticism and hostility from Israeli officials. 

One of the first Israeli government leaders to respond to press reports about NAZA was Israel’s Minister of Culture and Sport, Miki Zohar. A BBC article claimed that, in a post on the social media platform X, Zohar urged authorities to immediately investigate if the film’s production could constitute, “aiding the enemy during wartime,” (Bachega). Zohar hoped that, if this were the case, then the filmmakers could be prosecuted under Israel’s ‘Citizenship Law,’ which allows for the revocation of citizenship if, “a breach of allegiance to the state of Israel,” has occurred (Bachega). Prime Minister (PM) Benjamin Netanyahu only escalated this sentiment by promising that the government would introduce two new bills in response to media like NAZA: one that would allow for the revocation of citizenship of individuals who supposedly ‘defame’ IDF soldiers abroad, and another to exponentially increase the sum that media producers can be sued for in defamation cases (“Netanyahu Escalates Threats”). 

These strategic moves against members of the media have raised international concern for the protection of press freedom in Israel. The Committee to Protect Journalists, an independent non-profit which promotes press freedom worldwide, asserted that, “Journalists must not face the loss of their citizenship, legal retaliation, or intimidation because they report critically on the conduct of the military or other powerful institutions,” in reference to the attacks on the NAZA filmmakers (“Netanyahu Escalates Threats”). Israel, which is considered a parliamentary democracy that “generally,” guarantees political and civil liberties to its citizens, is being scrutinized for increasingly anti-democratic actions under PM Netanyahu’s leadership (Freedom House). Highly reputable scholarship in the field of political science, namely Robert Dahl’s proposed necessary institutional guarantees of democracy and Levitsky and Ziblatt’s ‘behavioral warning signs,’ of potential authoritarians, explain how recent attacks on press freedom by top Israeli politicians are a threat to the integrity of Israel’s democracy. 

An integral and fundamental aspect of democracy, as stated by Robert Dahl in, “Democratization and Public Opposition,” is the responsiveness of the government to all of its citizens (Dahl 2). Dahl outlined eight necessary institutional guarantees for this characteristic of democracy to materialize, two of which are particularly relevant in the case of Israel’s restriction of press freedom: the freedom of expression and the opportunity to have alternative sources of information (Dahl 3). While freedom of expression can be understood generally as the ability to share and receive information or ideas without government interference, the right to alternative sources of information refers to the access of independent news and viewpoints which are not restricted to that of the state. The new laws proposed by PM Netanyahu would severely limit the safe and secure ability of members of the media to criticize the actions of IDF soldiers and other Israeli military decisions without threats to citizenship status or costly lawsuits. As a result, these laws would upend Israel’s commitments to the institutional guarantees presented by Dahl, and consequently show an expansion of state measures against democratic principles by leading political figureheads. 

Beyond the foundational elements of democracy–related to its definition and its characteristics–is the role of the top executive. These leaders are expected to uphold democratic norms and processes, in accordance with Dahl’s institutional guarantees above. However, expectations versus reality vary widely among democracies across the world, and PM Netanyahu does not seem to be acting in favor of maintaining his status as a democratic leader. In, “Chapter 1: Fateful Alliances,” from How Democracies Die, co-authors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt laid out how to spot anti-democratic or authoritarian behavior from politicians who had not previously had a reputation for being anti-democratic (Levitsky and Ziblatt 21). Among these ‘behavioral warning signs,’ was the, “willingness to curtail civil liberties of opponents, including the media,” (Levitsky and Ziblatt 22). PM Netanyahu’s proposed laws clearly aim to intimidate members of the media who portray critical perspectives by manipulating formal institutions to limit their civil liberties and persecute them. 

Not only has PM Netanyhau damaged the integrity of Israel’s democracy by restricting Dahl’s institutional guarantees, but also by portraying certain behavioral warning signs that could point towards him becoming an authoritarian leader. In the “Introduction,” of Stealth Authoritarianism, Ozan O. Varol suggested that the scholarly debate surrounding the “democratic credentials,” of various leaders should focus less on their regime types, such as democratic, authoritarian, or hybrid, and more on their regime practices (Varol 1680). Varol’s logic in this assertion comes from how the labeling of certain regimes can actually cause, “conceptual confusion and obscure anti-democratic practices,” depending on previous assumptions about regime type (Varol 1680). By reframing the debate to focus on Israel’s regime practices, it would be more feasible to objectively consider the implications of new laws and actions that are contradictory to Israel’s reputation as a democracy. 

Among commentators on the Israeli government’s anti-democratic approach to targeting the NAZA filmmakers was an Israeli actor and screenwriter, Shlomi Elkabetz, who said on an Israeli news channel that the questions and concerns that arise in NAZA, “must be examined, not silenced,” emphasizing the importance of previously existing democratic norms (Bachega). While the erosion of these norms has been occurring in real time, Israel’s democracy simultaneously faces growing challenges from strengthening authoritarian sentiment among its most powerful leaders.