Claim 1 of 9
There was approval for 500 civilians to be killed in a single strike.
The IDF answers“The IDF has never planned, approved or carried out a strike in Gaza in which 500 civilians, or anything close to that number, were expected to be killed.”
The IDF adds that no one has “seriously alleged that an IDF strike caused that number of deaths or anything close to it”. It says the filmmakers featured the allegation in the film's official trailer even though they “necessarily could not have verified it and had no evidence to prove it”.
Claim 2 of 9
Junior operatives listed in “Lavender” could be struck with up to 20 expected civilian casualties; for senior commanders, whole-neighborhood strikes with 200 expected civilian casualties.
The IDF answers“IDF regulations have never granted automatic authorization for strikes against targets that place a fixed number of civilians at risk.”
The IDF says the claim rests on two errors: it treats a threshold that requires senior approval as permission to strike, and a database as a list of targets. For every strike the deciding commander must make an individual proportionality assessment. A threshold “is not a permitted number of civilian casualties; it determines only who has authority to approve a strike”.
On the larger number: “no approval-authority threshold of 200 casualties for a strike against a military objective has ever applied or existed.” On Lavender: it “is not a list of targets approved to strike”, and a person's inclusion in it “does not identify that person as a target, let alone authorize a strike against him”.
Claim 3 of 9
The IDF “NAZA” count (collateral damage estimation) does not distinguish between adults and minors.
The IDF answers“That is what international humanitarian law requires: a civilian is a civilian regardless of age, and no civilian life is assigned a lesser value.”
The IDF says commanders weigh the estimate before deciding whether a strike may proceed. It says that throughout the war the presence of civilians, “and children in particular, led commanders to cancel, postpone or replan strikes”.
Claim 4 of 9
Actual civilian casualties from strikes were not checked afterward.
The IDF answers“Several IDF units review strike outcomes, including by monitoring reports of civilian harm.”
The IDF says the interviewees do not appear to belong to those units. It states a limit of its own: soldiers are generally not present near places struck from the air, and its ability to verify casualty reports “is limited”. Within that limit it monitors open sources, and it says this review “has prompted debriefs into hundreds of incidents”.
Separately, every suspected violation of the law or of IDF directives must be reported and examined. The Military Advocate General decides whether a criminal investigation is warranted.
Claim 5 of 9
Artificial intelligence autonomously generated tens of thousands of human targets that were attacked.
The IDF answers“In the IDF, artificial intelligence does not determine whether an object or a person is designated as a target, nor whether a target is struck.”
According to the IDF, targets are identified by human analysts under defined procedures and approved by at least one authorized intelligence officer. They then pass through a wider planning and approval process that ends with a decision by an operational commander. Data-processing tools help analysts cross-reference intelligence databases. The IDF says these tools “cannot independently identify and select targets to strike in the IDF”.
Claim 6 of 9
Soldiers fired on civilians near humanitarian aid distribution sites.
The IDF answers“IDF directives prohibit targeting civilians. Allegations of misconduct, including in relation to shooting incidents in proximity to aid distribution centers, were referred for inquiry.”
The IDF says the rules of engagement near the sites “permitted fire only against military operatives and suspects posing an immediate threat”. It refers to “several tragic incidents involving civilian deaths in or around distribution centers”, after which debriefs were held and additional instructions issued.
It says reports of casualties near the sites “do not, by themselves, establish who was responsible or how the casualties occurred”, and that reported exceptional incidents were referred to the General Staff Fact-Finding and Assessment Mechanism.
Claim 7 of 9
Buildings were bombed “according to the algorithm” in neighborhoods where a quarter of the residents remained, on the basis that previously they had been warned to leave.
The IDF answers“IDF directives make clear that a warning does not permit civilian presence to be ignored when deciding on a strike and does not by itself authorize a strike. An algorithm has never decided on a strike.”
The IDF says the estimate of civilian harm begins only after a structure has been identified as a military objective. How many residents had left an area was one factor in that estimate, alongside intelligence and surveillance.
It calls the film's description of attacks on neighborhoods misleading. It says Hamas used clusters of buildings as combat compounds, and that each structure struck in such cases “was required to be individually assessed and designated as a military objective”.
Claim 8 of 9
A belief spread in the IDF that there are no uninvolved civilians in Gaza.
The IDF answers“The distinction between military operatives and civilians is fundamental to the IDF, its commanders and its binding directives during the fighting in Gaza.”
The directives prohibit intentionally directing strikes against civilians, and strikes expected to harm civilians disproportionately. Of the interviewee's statement, the IDF says it “may reflect his personal feelings or assessments, but it does not represent in any way the approach of the IDF and its commanders”.
Claim 9 of 9
An interviewee was asked whether this was genocide, and said yes.
The IDF answers“The allegation of ‘genocide’ is outrageous and unfounded, and the State of Israel has categorically rejected it.”
The IDF points to the legal definition: genocide requires “the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such”. It says the interviewees could not testify to such an intent “because none ever existed”.
It says the operations in Gaza pursued objectives set by the political echelon: dismantling Hamas's governing and military capabilities and creating conditions for the return of the hostages.
