Today, Explained - Speaking up for Gaza

Episode Date: September 17, 2026

It's not just Macklemore. A new documentary on atrocities in Gaza has enraged the Israeli government... and some pro-Palestinian activists. This episode was produced by Ariana Aspuru, edited by Jolie Myers, fact checked by Kelli Wessinger, engineered by Bridger Dunnagan, and hosted by Noel King. A 'Boycott Israel' banner is seen at a solidarity demonstration with Palestinian political prisoners in Krakow, Poland on April 17, 2026. Photo by Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto via Getty Images. Listen to Today, Explained ad-free by becoming a Vox Member: vox.com/members. New Vox members get $20 off their membership right now. Transcript at ⁠⁠vox.com/today-explained-podcast⁠.⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he wants to strip citizenship from two Israeli directors who made an acclaimed documentary detailing atrocities in Gaza. Also, Macklemore is back. What, what, what? What do these things have in common? Well, boycotts and protests of pro-Israel Israeli artists, Israel-critical Israeli artists, non-Israeli artists who are pro- or anti-Israel artists who don't want to say anything about Israel at all, and artists who just wanted to say, Free Palestine. Are leading to cycles of cancellation, retribution, and resignation.

So, is any of this helping people in Gaza? Is that even the point? We're going to ask, coming up on today explained from Vox. In Toronto, every arrival is a statement, and nothing says it better than this. Cadillac Optic was the number one selling luxury EV in Canada for 2025. Find your rhythm across a seamless 33-inch display and an immersive 19-speaker AKG surround audio.

system. This city demands agility and optic delivers with precision to make every drive extraordinary. Let's take the Cadillac. Find out more at Cadillac canada.ca. Luxury sales claim based on S&P Global Mobility Canadian New Vehicle Total Registrations for calendar year 2025 for the Cadillac definition of luxury. Haven't had much luck on the dating apps lately? Don't worry. It's not just you. It does seem like across sex and dating and partnership, cohabitation, marriage, all of these behaviors are kind of on the decline. How to fight the romance slump and find a connection in real life. That's this week on Explain It to Me.

New episodes, Sundays, wherever you get your podcasts. This is Today Explained. I'm Noelle King. Most people haven't had a chance yet to see the documentary Naza, but Bilga Iberi did at the Venice Film Festival where the filmmakers, Yuval, Abraham, and Rachel Jor, got a 25-minute standing ovation. NASA is a very grim documentary in which one of the directors, Yuval Abraham, sits on various rooftops in Tel Aviv and interviews 24 different Israeli intelligence agents and soldiers about some of the things they did during the Gaza war.

And most of what they talk about are the different systems they used to effectively destroy homes and buildings in Gaza. The term Nausea refers to collateral damage. It's a collateral damage figure. And so, for example, when they say something has four Naza, that means there are four other people killed besides the main target in a bombing. So at various points, different interviewees talk about five Naza, 10, Naza, 20 Naza, 200 Naza. I'mos to watch on all

bay, and to see how the people amort to when you're now all the different interviewees

they're all their identities are hidden. They're kind of covered by night because it's all shot in night, it's all shadow.

It's a very dark, dark, like visually dark movie. So we don't get their names, we don't see their faces and we've

also been told that their voices have been modified. You know, some of them are very regretful. Some of them talk about how

they kind of got into this. how they felt doing it, how they felt afterwards. One of them talks about how when he was younger, he went to Poland to learn more about the Holocaust. And, you know, he was kind of obviously knew about the Nazis, but was kind of appalled at what he saw. And then even at one point says, you know,

I still think the Nazis are pure evil. What does that make me? Another one agrees that it's a genocide. While we see these interviews, there are also cutaways to buildings, in Tel Aviv. This is kind of a very calm place. And Gaza, which is not that far away, has been, you know, basically completely obliterated. And there's kind of a contrast being presented in this. A couple of people talk about this notion that Hamas uses human shields,

which is a way of saying, well, you know, there are homes where there's also military operations happening. Obviously, the implication is that that's a human shield. At the same time, You know, the film makes the point. Tel Aviv is also where the Israeli military is headquartered. And in fact, at one point among all these homes that we see in Tel Aviv, we see what appears to be a military boardroom with soldiers and fatigues inside it. So why is that not considered a human shield? That's kind of the question they're almost asking.

You know, so there's a certain sort of exposing of the hypocrisy behind that statement as well. I saw your review in New York Magazine, like a lot of people. The headline called this one of the most important films of our time. I don't think of you as an exaggerator. Tell me what you meant by that. I think Naza is one of the most important films of our time, not just because of what it exposes, although what it exposes is extremely important.

And even though it's not graphic really at all, except for one brief section at the end when we do see Gaza, and I think that moment is very important, it's there to make you feel a kind of visceral, outrage at what you're hearing. And you start to imagine what this could look like because people talk about how, you know, they can hack almost every phone in Gaza and they can listen in on families while they bomb them and they can hear moms, you know, screaming over their dying children.

You know, the filmmakers have talked about how they are, in fact, using their privilege as Israelis to essentially put this out into the world. world because the reporting in the film is not new. You know, these reports have been published in The Guardian in 972 magazine and other outlets. They also talked in their press conference about how Palestinian journalists have reported on this stuff. I think if a Palestinian, you know, Palestinian colleagues and journalists would try to call Israeli intelligence officers, you know what will happen. Like they will be, they may be arrested indefinitely or killed and murdered, like 200 journalists in Gaza and dozens across the West Bank.

So we are examining a system where we know we have privilege. And I think by making a film, by premiering it at a big film festival, by kind of drawing the attention of the world on you, they feel that they can bring about more effective change that way and actually get people to cover it as we're seeing. There's more coverage of Naza, the film, than there was of these revelations earlier from The Guardian or from these other papers. So my name is Shani Littman. I'm a journalist for Haaret's newspaper.

I'm writing magazine pieces and also op-eds and sometimes film critics. Have you seen the documentary, NASA? I haven't. I asked the PR person of the movie to send me a link, and it's not possible. They don't have available links at the moment. I mean, considering the huge storm that came out, Now they're probably rethinking how to handle the distribution of the film.

We're going to be talking today about what the reaction to this film in Israel has been like. But I think what I hear you saying is it's safe to assume most people in Israel have not actually been able to see the movie. Is that right? Yes, that's correct. But they are aware of what is in it. Let's talk about the conversation around this movie in Israel. What's the reaction been like? So I think you can find many different types of criticism from all sides of a political range, by the way.

It's not only right-wing people or people who are supporting the war. The claims are first that maybe the film itself is not verified. Like they have witnesses that are anonymous and you cannot, that they didn't verify well enough. But I think most people are just, they just feel that this is an opportunity for all the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli and anti-Semite people in the world to attack Israeli. NASA is part of psychological warfare aimed at the Israeli public and IDF soldiers. Inside Israeli society, the film becomes an internal voice telling Israelis the war they are fighting isn't just. They have internalized Jew hate and in turn use their Jewishness to kosher anti-Jewish ideas

by assuming the role of the good Jew. It will not protect them. But in the process, it can do untold damage to the Jewish people. Israelis from all sides are afraid of the way the world is seeing us at the moment. It's something that is really important. Is anybody in Israel saying, hey, we're glad that they did it. glad that they made this movie. Yes, there are people who are supporting Yuval and the filmmakers, supporting their right to criticize, to investigate. As a liberal country, we should

be able to investigate ourselves, to criticize ourselves. And this is something that they are doing. They are doing their work as journalists. There has also been a reaction from the Israeli government at a more official level. What has the Israeli government? What has the Israeli government? government said about this film? So the first person to react was the Minister of Culture. I will act immediately to revoke the Israeli citizenship of these despicable creators for treason against the state. He said that Israel should, that the nationality of Yuval and Rahel, the filmmakers should be revoked. That we should take their national.

They should not be Israeli citizens anymore. And it was, there's a really, a really long history of films that were criticized by, especially by different culture ministers. But the way, I mean, I mean, I haven't seen anything like this, like what is happening now before. This is really frightening. I mean, I'm, I don't know, I'm completely, I'm horrified by this. I already saw some clips on social media. By people who are, you know, by people who are, you know, filming themselves, where you can see, like in the background, you could see a house. And someone was saying, you can all come here.

This is the house of Rachel Schorl's parents. They live here and you can come and do whatever you want. I invite you all to come here and take revenge. And there were several clips with the same message, I guess. I'm guessing they're not coming back to Israel at the moment. I think it has become really dangerous for them to be here. And it's a new level, you know. I've never...

Even I published an article about this. I'm not, I didn't do the movie. I just published an article supporting them at Ha'Arretz, in Ha'Arretz. And my mother is afraid that they, that someone will attack me. I mean, this is also, yeah, like it, the echoes of this event are, they're going very far now. Shani Litman of Ha'Arretz, you also heard from Bilga Abiri of New York Magazine, thanks to them. When we come back, the boycotts. Hey, what's up, guys? It's Babbish, and on this week's episode of In The Booth,

I'm joined by chef, cookbook author, and Food Network legend, Alex Gwornishelli. We're talking about chops, the Hamptons, and what it takes to make a cry-worthy pasta. You can listen now wherever you get your podcasts. Support for the show today comes from Framer, and if you're hoping to get those cute pictures all taken care of, this isn't the place. Framer is the AI website builder that helps creators, teams, and businesses ship production-ready sites faster than ever while getting every detail right. Prompt, inspect, edit, and publish in one place at a whole new pace. Learn how you can get more out of your site from a Framer specialist or get started building for free today at Framer.com slash explained for 30%.

off a Framer pro annual plan. That's Framer.com slash explained rules and restrictions may apply. With Framer agents and humans work in tandem. Agents bring speed and scale. People bring taste, judgment, and control. Support for the show comes from BANTA with AI adoption growing. So are your company's security risks and requirements. New framework. audits and vendors keep piling on. Get off of me. But if your team isn't getting any bigger, you can start to feel the strain.

So then you might turn to compliance tools that promise automation. But for a lot of those tools, you can end up stuck doing a lot of the work by hand. Anyway, Vanta works differently. Vanta has an agentic trust platform that is built to scale with you, not to slow you down. With over 1,400 automated tests across 400 plus integrations,

Vanta collects evidence and monitors your controls year round. Learn more at vanta.com slash explained, especially if you don't know what I'm talking about. Go to v-a-n-ta.com slash explained. This is today explained. Arnold Rosenfeld is the Washington correspondent for Haarets. He's been writing about boycott of art and artists from Israel and those who have spoken about Israel and Gaza.

So the Sheeran-Craft-McLmore debacle did not exactly catch him off guard. Yeah, I mean, I think that the sort of boycott and then reverse boycott, which you can sort of view this as, right, that, you know, it was reported that Robert Kraft put pressure on Ed Shearin to drop McElmore, and then in response, other musical acts basically boycotted insurance tour, and there have been, you know, fans who are very upset. To some degree, this speaks to the imminence that a lot of people feel about the actual events in Israel and Palestine, right? That policymakers are not actually changing the facts on the ground, and so it's incumbent on them to do something, and that comes out in these boycotts. But it's certainly not limited to one side.

The power dynamics are different and interesting. But, yeah, everyone's boycotting everyone, it seems. The movie Naza is particularly interesting because it brings attention to atrocities in Gaza. But there are people who are denouncing the movie not because of what it says or doesn't say, but because it was Israelis that made the movie. What's going on there? Yeah. So I think it's a few things that are going on. One is sort of a legitimate critique that we often hear.

I think it has its own problems. But it's basically a complaint that when Israelis call out, Israel, human rights abuses, they are taken more seriously than when Palestinians call out those same things. So sort of like, why did we need an Israeli film to tell us about these things? We've been saying them for three years or 10 years or 20 years. And I get that. I don't think it's that unusual. This is a pretty common thing that when someone who is on the side that is being accused of wrongdoing, acknowledge as wrongdoing, that's given greater weight because they're viewed as like less bias. But I get why people think that's problematic. What we're also seeing, though, is just

this kind of complete and total demonization, not just of Israel, but of like anything associated with Israel. So the fact that the filmmakers are Israeli, even though they share the political critique of Israel's, you know, opponents and critics abroad, is viewed as like it must be disqualifying because Israelis are bad people. I'm not supporting anything made by proud Israelis, even if it's supposedly pro-Palestine. The half-hour ovation is simply ridiculous. Naza is a couple liberal Zionists that see their apartheid occupation is near its end. So they're trying that old criminals trick. See ya.

So I don't know what to do with this information that Israelis made a film or are engaged in a critique that I share. And, you know, a lot of it is just about this kind of vitriolic hatred toward Israelis, regardless of the political context. This is not the first time that this has happened since October 7th. you've written about other examples, other complex examples. Tell me about some that you've followed. So, you know, Nadav Lapid, who's an Israeli filmmaker who's sort of been living in self-imposed exile in France, was sort of kicked out or pressured to leave a film festival in France because the film that he had produced, which was very critical. It wasn't a documentary like Nasa, but it was basically also accusing Israel of genocide had received a grant from, I mean, the justification was sort of that it had received some.

some grant from some quasi-governmental or, you know, an NGO in Israel that received government funding and that therefore he was complicit, even though he's, like, you know, one of the main public enemies of, like, the culture ministry. And, you know, and he said at the time, like, what do you want for me? Like, I left. You think, like, Jews have unfair privilege in Israel or that, you know, Israeli Jews should leave? Like, I left. I'm in France. Like, you think we should speak out against the government? I'm speaking out against the government. That's what my film is about. And, you know, still, that wasn't viewed as sufficient. So it's, it's, it's. It's a fractured thing that we're seeing similarly with Naza.

I wouldn't characterize it the main response as being a critical or calling for a boycott of the film. It's just elements within the movement, but it's a real line of division. A similar incident, Israeli authors, there's been a lot of, you know, Israeli authors talking about difficulty being published or getting their books into translation. there have been, you know, Israeli musical acts who have faced protests or interruptions at their concert. So, yeah, that's been going on for a long time. It's just interesting now that it's also spilling over into the Israelis who are being critical of the government, and that's still not viewed as good enough by some people. Historically, there has been a difference between people complaining online,

even if we're talking about like hundreds of thousands of people complaining online, and a formal boycott. what form are these critiques taking? Are these formal boycotts? Are they informal boycotts? Like, what is behind them? So the BDS movement, which stands for boycott, divest, and sanction, is this sort of global, you know, nonviolent campaign to pressure Israel to, it depends who you talk to, but to change its policies to the Palestinians in one way or another. And so the idea is, you know, one tranche of that is boycotts that kind of anyone can participate in.

And those are intended to be strategic boycott target. So, you know, we're going to boycott soda stream to pressure them to, you know, move their manufacturing facilities. Honestly, boycott soda stream. Free Palestine. Little bit like all of their mixes. Made in Israel. Made is real.

Boycott soda stream. And if you want to be a good little watermelon and help out any way you can, I'm going to show you an alternative to the CO2 cylinders if you still want to keep your bubbles. We're going to pressure Caterpillar to not sell, you know, bulldozers to the Israeli military. Caterpillar is very much still providing the Israeli government with the tools they need to displace and dispossess the Palestinian people to keep the apartheid going. Zionists and Israeli products have no business in Costco. We don't want to be buying their products.

So boycott cat and free palestine. And so I think the boycotts look like different things depending on the context. When it came to Israeli restaurants in the U.S. or restaurants with Israeli chefs, I mean, there was sort of a sense of you shouldn't go patronize them. Some have since closed and blamed those boycotts for their closure. It's really hard to measure the impact. And a lot of it is more about online vitriol than it is. I mean, I haven't seen calls on like the New York, you know, the Film Festival of New York that's hosting Naza to like not host it.

So in the case of Naza, it's not even clear that it's like a boycott of the film itself. it's more just like this outrage toward the filmmakers. The response to these boycotts has been interesting in a lot of ways. Some people see them as justified isolation of artists and institutions that support Israel or that get support from Israel. And some say, look, you are pushing Israeli artists out of public life. So there is nuance here. There is nuanced disagreement even. How do you make sense of the nuanced disagreement?

Well, you know, I think that part of the argument is I'm not even sure that there is actually disagreement that these things are intended to push Israeli artists and public figures out of public life outside of Israel. I think they, you know, both sides sort of agree that that is the goal. The disagreement is whether that is justified. And I think that, you know, the refrain from people who think this is unacceptable or anti-Semitic is that we don't do this to other countries, which is by and large true. that, you know, if you're a filmmaker from China or Syria or elsewhere, you know, you were not expected to answer for your government's actions. And I think the retort is that the Jewish-Israeli public is much more supportive of the things that people are mad at the Israeli government for. So there was widespread Israeli-Jewish support for Israel's campaign in Gaza. The flip side

of that is that, of course, many of the Israeli artists and and professors and other public figures who are traveling and speaking and doing events abroad, especially those who are not doing those things to defend Israel, are critics of the government or are more likely to be more liberal and more sympathetic to the protesters. But I think that, you know, the discourse became so polarized that the request was not just for you to express concern about Palestinian civilians, for example. It was really for you to completely disown, you know, Israeli identity, condemn the Israeli government, fully embraced sort of anti-Zionism.

and that was something that was really a non-starter, even for many very liberal Israeli Jews. And so that's where kind of the tensions came to the fore. We would assume that the point of a boycott is to change the conditions that people are so appalled by, right? Put pressure on the Israeli government to stop what is happening in Gaza. And I wonder, you know, whether in this case we see any of that actually happening, whether there is any evidence that the Israeli government in in the face of boycotts and protests and people talking online and people canceling each other and canceling other people, whether there is any evidence that the Israeli government is changing tact here?

I think the short answer is no. But I think that it's a little bit misguided to view the boycotts and the other pressure as an attempt to like specifically change Netanyahu's like personal policies or the Israeli government's personal policies or even to like direct. directly appeal to the Israeli public, I think there's an understanding that they are not receptive to protests in, you know, New York or London or Antwerp or what have you, but that the governments might be, right? And so that all of this public pressure may have played a role in the United Kingdom and France and Canada, you know, releasing these sanctions targeting, you know, goods from

the West Bank or targeting settler leaders, et cetera. And so, I mean, a lot depends on the upcoming Israeli election, right? Nanyahu seems pretty set on not changing. But, you know, if you get a new leader in there, even if they're not, I mean, they're not going to elect like a truly left-wing leader, but they might elect someone who says, you know what, like the price that we're paying for defending violent settlers in the West Bank is not worth the cost of these sanctions. So it's hard to draw one-to-one. I don't think the boycott movement has always been extremely strategic, but I think that's the chain that they see, you know, it following. Arna Rosenfeld, Washington correspondent for Haarets.

Today's team, Ariana Espudo, Jolie Myers, Bridger Dunigan, Kelly Wessinger, and me, Noel King. It's today explained.