Discussion on Military Intelligence and Reporting

The intelligence, and I have to tell you that, as a journalist, I don't think

I would have aired it,

because you provide no supporting evidence for the very, very serious things they're saying.

We don't have their names, their units, to know they were really exposed

to the information they're talking about. We have no dates of events, locations,

or who was harmed.

We basically have nothing to hold on to in order to refute or corroborate the testimony

in question. I'll tell you, because I never got

to the specifics of

a case I felt fully comfortable reporting on. More than once, I received testimonies from soldiers

when I came to investigate them, or I simply couldn't verify or disprove horrific

testimonies

from soldiers. We killed hundreds of uninvolved people in bombings

like these, maybe

thousands. How can you verify something like that? He doesn't exactly give you a row of buildings or

targets.

Yes,

Yes, the word “thousands” isn't there, but there certainly are collateral damage authorizations, what's called

collateral damage, in the hundreds. That is, th-th-there—

In the past, we reported on specific strikes, not just us, but also The New York

Times, with specifics, Ibrahim Biari with the fallen,

a particular strike on Ahmed al-Dur that failed, Majed Shuja'iya, Wissam

Farhat, and so on, where there was approval for collateral damage, collateral damage in the hundreds.

We had a soldier who actually described how he, how, during hundreds of such strikes,

into hundreds of homes, he actually listened directly inside the homes. Now, in the past,

this—

How did you verify this, Yuval? But this case, for example, how did you verify it?

I don't have all the hundreds of cases he described, but we certainly had a number of cases that he

described by name, where the person remembered the name of the operative

who was involved.

A soldier says in the film, "I really enjoyed it. It was really fun. "I really enjoyed

the work," and it was taken out of context. I also heard the gasps of

the viewers beside me at the screening, as if he really enjoyed killing Gaz—Gazans

who were innocent. But I understood his words, and you were there for the full

interview, that he

meant, "I enjoyed the work, which was eliminating Hamas members."

That's what I thought I was doing. Not killing innocent Gazans.

So look, first of all, as I told The Guardian, uh, their editorial team

had access to the raw footage. They wouldn't air this material.

Why didn't you include, for example, the captivity videos, which were a very significant factor?

I'm also sure of the mindset of those intelligence people who testify

before you, who say, "Our brothers are now being tortured in

Hamas captivity."

It appears very clearly that the film deals

with and p-presents the nature of October seventh, and it's there,

and it— presents reports on October seventh and, and, and the hostages.

It's very little, Yuval, compared to what... It's very little.

A-and this, this, this is there again, Raviv, if— then make a film like that.