NAZA, a documentary by Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, premiered at the Venice International Film Festival on September 10, won the Special Jury Prize, and reportedly received a record 25-minute standing ovation.

It has also generated a political uproar in Israel.

The title is an Israeli military acronym derived from nezek agavi, Hebrew for collateral damage. It refers to the filmmakers’ conviction that the systems Israel used to select targets and authorize strikes in Gaza enabled immoral and unlawfully high rates of civilian casualties. Their allegation goes beyond excessive tolerance of civilian casualties: They reportedly contend that the killing was intentional.

I haven’t seen the film. This means I cannot confidently assess its editing, corroboration, or the full testimony it presents. I would love to live in a world in which I could wait, watch the movie, and have a sober debate about its claims. Unfortunately, the discourse online is not so patient. That’s why it’s necessary to examine the argument its makers have published, the reporting on which it builds, and the standards by which its allegations should be judged. The film falls short on every dimension.

Start with the question of civilian casualties. The online conversation about the film—as distinct from the film’s own claims—is replete with shock and horror at the finding that the IDF calculated the estimated number of civilian deaths before each strike. According to the usual Israel critics, this shows that the resulting deaths amounted to deliberate murder...