In search of some truth. An interview with journalist Raviv Drucker

Tel Aviv. On the third anniversary of the 7 October massacre, the gap between how Israeli society perceives itself and its traumas, and how the rest of the world perceives them, is becoming increasingly evident. The films "The Bibi Files" and "Naza" have become the clearest illustration of this. Il Foglio discusses this with Raviv Drucker, one of Israel’s leading investigative journalists, who works for Channel 13 and Haaretz; he was among those interviewed for the first documentary – of which he is also one of the producers – and was one of the first Israelis to see "Naza" and interview its director, Yuval Abraham.

The subtext that emerges from watching the countless talk shows about these films is that “Naza”, with its evocative title and footage of everyday life on the rooftops of Tel Aviv set against the devastation of Gaza, confirms – through the words of soldiers – the IDF’s genocidal plan, whilst Israeli society is portrayed as the extended family of Rudolf Höss, the Auschwitz commandant from The Zone of Interest. The Bibi Files adds another piece to the jigsaw, alongside reports of the warnings Prime Minister Netanyahu received from Egypt and the UAE: the Israeli leadership knew and let it happen. How does one of Netanyahu’s main critics view this account from Israel? “It is obvious that Netanyahu did not want 7 October to happen; he did not plan it, nor did he envisage it in any way. There are always conspiracy theories, but I am not aware of any serious allegations in this regard,” says Drucker, who is well aware of the manipulation that permeates the harsh internal criticism in Israel when it is taken out of the context of the broader local debate. “I do think, however, that there is a direct link to his legal troubles, which have led him to align himself with far-right partners – people he would never in his life have imagined including in government. This has led to a reckless policy, from the Temple Mount to the West Bank and on to judicial reform. And to a large extent, this facilitated the Hamas attack, because it created a much greater sense of purpose among them, as well as the feeling that we were divided and weak, and it also deepened the mistrust between the political and military establishments.”

Is today’s Netanyahu motivated solely by political survival? “As is often the case with those who have been in power for years, Netanyahu is genuinely convinced that he must remain in power because only he can properly represent Israel’s interests. From his point of view, fighting for his own political survival is equivalent to fighting for Israel; it is a bit like ‘I am the state’.”

“Bibi Files” is presented in Italy to suggest that Netanyahu is prolonging the war to avoid trial, but in reality the events depicted predate the film’s release in 2024: we see in the courtroom that the charges appear to be losing their substance. “The court has surprised us by deeming it appropriate to rule, for the second time, that the bribery charge does not hold water. I think the other charges are solid, but I could be wrong; the verdict will decide. Generally speaking, there is a widespread public sentiment that the trial has dragged on for too long and has become a farce. So people who care about the good of the country are saying: let’s put an end to this drain on resources; even if he perhaps deserves a harsher sentence, the important thing is that it stops. Even I, as someone who isn’t exactly a fan of Netanyahu, have no interest in seeing him in an orange jumpsuit in prison at the age of eighty. I would be very happy if this trial were to end and the right decisions were taken.”

“Bibi Files” cannot be screened in Israel as it contains material from interrogations carried out during the investigations into the Netanyahu trial. “Naza” is currently only available in Israel at private screenings for journalists. According to Drucker, there may be one-off screenings, but no mass distribution. “The Israeli public is very angry about this film, and no institution will take responsibility for screening it,” he says. This is a point in favour of those who argue that if the Israelis do not distribute it, it is proof that society is becoming increasingly illiberal.

“It is proof that Israeli society, which is seriously traumatised following 7 October, is finding it very difficult to come to terms with a film of this kind that portrays it as a Nazi society, when it feels that in reality it is a victim and not the perpetrator. We should look at other societies that have suffered far less trauma and see how they reacted,” says Drucker, who nevertheless speaks of “a missed opportunity: if they had tried to make it more journalistic, more multi-faceted, the filmmakers could have really spoken to Israelis so that they understood how we behaved in Gaza, because there is no doubt that there are actions we must come to terms with”.

Drucker wrote that watching the film made him feel like “a German during the Second World War”, but he focuses on journalistic criticism. “As I told Yuval Abraham, I wouldn’t have broadcast it. As journalists, we must ensure that the testimony provided to us is true, accurate and cross-checked. This film apparently presents monstrous testimonies, but I think none of them would have passed the basic test of a first-year journalism course: there is no place, no date, no event, and no way to cross-check the information for verification. The Guardian says: trust us. With all due respect to The Guardian – and I do have respect for it – that’s not how it works. I would never have dared to broadcast anything like this. I have great respect for Yuval Abraham and I have no doubt that Israel and the IDF have committed many reprehensible acts in this war, which must be investigated, and those responsible must be held to account. But this film is simply unjournalistic.”

Drucker previously conducted an investigation into the anonymous testimonies of soldiers at ‘Breaking the Silence’ and includes this point in his critique as well. “I do not belong to the right-wing of the political spectrum and I have respect for the work of ‘Breaking the Silence’, but as journalists we wanted to verify their testimonies. I found, I believe, two or three that were not entirely true; others were only half-true. Now, does this mean that those who testify to ‘Breaking the Silence’ are lying? I do not think so. I think that in wartime situations such as these, you are not always privy to all the facts.”

“I saw with my own eyes, whilst I was in the Air Force bunker, a three-figure ‘Naza’ (‘collateral damage’) figure; I don’t remember the exact number. It wasn’t 500 as the film claims. But one must also understand the broader context: even if we start from a three-figure estimate, it is a complex process. The concept of ‘Naza’ is the opposite of what the film seeks to claim: it is a tool used by the IDF to try to reduce the number of civilian casualties. At the start of the war, fuelled by a great thirst for revenge, the ‘Naza’ threshold was certainly raised. This film provides no evidence of how or when. How can we know, moreover, that these soldiers were actually fully involved in the decision-making process? You’re told that 24 soldiers and officers from Unit 8200 were interviewed. As someone who has sought out soldiers willing to speak to me about this, I can say that finding 24 from that intelligence unit who would agree to speak in a film against Israel – well, that is extraordinarily unusual, and I’m using a euphemism. Furthermore, these soldiers are not necessarily privy to the entire decision-making process. So to claim that they can testify exactly what happened is, in my view, highly problematic.”

As we approach the anniversary of the start of the war and the election date, how has Israeli society changed over the past three years? “Israeli society, which was already quite right-wing and not exactly keen on compromise, has become even more so, more convinced of the use of force. And this is very sad, and it is a very difficult challenge which I do not know how we will manage to face. The biggest test is, of course, whether in these elections the people who were responsible for 7 October – under whose leadership this massacre took place – will, after all this horrific disaster, remain in their posts to continue governing. I think this would show the whole world what a difficult and problematic process Israeli society has undergone in the wake of the trauma of 7 October.”