Guardian documentary presents anonymised testimonies from Israeli soldiers on 'collateral damage' term

A new Guardian-produced film by Israeli directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor gathers anonymised interviews with two dozen Israeli soldiers and intelligence officers about a Hebrew military term for collateral damage; columnist Mehdi Hasan says the testimonies challenged his thinking.

Film and filmmakers

A Guardian-produced documentary by Oscar-winning Israeli directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor examines a Hebrew military term used to describe collateral damage, assembling on-camera testimonies from serving and former Israeli soldiers and intelligence officers. The film, screened this week and reported on by columnist Mehdi Hasan, places many of its contributors in dark settings — often on rooftops in Tel Aviv — with their voices digitally altered to protect their identities.

Voices from within

According to Hasan, the documentary features interviews with roughly two dozen members of the Israeli security establishment. The contributors speak candidly about operations and the language used to describe civilian casualties, presenting material that the filmmakers and some commentators say runs counter to familiar public narratives.

Questioning established narratives

Hasan wrote that he found the film striking and difficult to forget, and that its testimony prompted him to reassess arguments he has debated previously with defenders of Israeli policy. He quotes the filmmakers’ approach as inviting viewers to weigh the veterans’ accounts directly: "Don't take my word — take theirs." In one scene highlighted by Hasan, director Yuval Abraham poses a notably blunt question to a soldier, underscoring the film's confrontational interview style.

Public reaction and context

The documentary has prompted discussion about how military language and internal accounts influence public understanding of conflict. By presenting anonymised firsthand testimony, the film aims to foreground voices from inside Israel’s security apparatus; commentators and viewers will likely continue to debate what those testimonies imply for wider claims about policy and accountability.