A political storm has erupted in Israel after Culture Minister Miki Zohar threatened to pursue the revocation of citizenship of filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, following the international success of their Gaza documentary NAZA.

The documentary won the Special Jury Prize at the 83rd Venice International Film Festival and received a reported 25-minute standing ovation at its premiere.

MINISTER ACCUSES FILMMAKERS OF TREASON

Zohar described the documentary as deeply damaging to Israel and accused its creators of acting against the country during wartime.

In a statement on X, he said he would seek to revoke the Israeli citizenship of Abraham and Szor, accusing them of treason and of seeking international approval at Israel’s expense. He has also asked officials to examine the possibility of revoking their citizenship and investigate how material used in the film was obtained.

The threat has intensified an already heated debate inside Israel over the limits of dissent, journalism and artistic expression during the Gaza war.

WHAT IS NAZA ABOUT?

The 80-minute documentary examines Israel’s military campaign in Gaza through interviews with 24 Israeli military and intelligence personnel, who spoke anonymously.

According to accounts of the film, the interviewees describe the use of artificial-intelligence and surveillance systems in the process of identifying targets in Gaza. The documentary also examines allegations that civilian casualties were anticipated during some military operations.

The Israeli military has rejected the film’s allegations, criticizing the reliance on anonymous testimonies and disputing claims that its operations deliberately target civilians.

NETANYAHU ALSO CONDEMNS THE FILM

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has separately attacked NAZA, describing it as inflammatory and accusing it of contributing to antisemitism.

Israeli military chief Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir has also criticized the documentary and called for possible legal action over what officials describe as misleading or damaging claims about the Israel Defense Forces.

FILMMAKERS DEFEND THEIR WORK

Abraham and Szor have defended the documentary and the journalistic process behind it. Their film was produced after several years of investigation and relies on testimony from people with direct experience of Israeli military and intelligence operations.

The Guardian, which co-produced the documentary, has also defended the filmmakers, saying the project was based on extensive investigative journalism and verified testimonies from confidential sources. The newspaper said it would defend the film and its creators against censorship or attacks.

WIDER DEBATE OVER FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

The controversy has now moved beyond the film itself, raising questions about citizenship, political dissent and freedom of expression in Israel.

The legal process for stripping citizenship is complex and requires more than a ministerial declaration. Israeli courts have previously recognized circumstances in which citizenship can be revoked for serious acts of disloyalty, including certain forms of treason or espionage.

For the filmmakers, the dispute has placed NAZA at the centre of an international debate over how Israel’s conduct in Gaza is documented and discussed.

The film’s Venice award has given it a major international platform, while the reaction from Israeli officials has ensured that its political impact is likely to continue well beyond the film festival.

WASHINGTON — Pressure is mounting on the U.S. Congress to establish stronger safeguards for artificial intelligence, but political divisions and uncertainty over how far regulation should go are making immediate action increasingly difficult.

The debate intensified this week after several prominent technology executives and AI researchers raised concerns about the potential risks of rapidly advancing systems. Their warnings have added momentum to calls for federal rules covering AI safety, cybersecurity, transparency and accountability.

Democrats Push for Urgent Action

Several Democratic lawmakers are urging Congress to move quickly, arguing that the pace of AI development is outstripping the government’s ability to oversee it.

Some lawmakers have proposed measures ranging from mandatory safety requirements to mechanisms that would allow humans to shut down advanced AI systems under certain circumstances. Senator Bernie Sanders has also backed legislation calling for a pause on the development of advanced AI and restrictions on superintelligence.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has called for decisive action, while other lawmakers have suggested creating a dedicated congressional committee to examine AI risks and develop legislation.

Republicans Warn Against Overregulation

Republican leaders have generally taken a more cautious approach, emphasizing the need to protect U.S. technological leadership, particularly in competition with China.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has rejected calls for an emergency congressional intervention, arguing that lawmakers need to understand the technology before imposing sweeping rules. He has said AI companies should take greater responsibility for developing safety measures while Congress works toward a more carefully designed framework.

President Donald Trump has also dismissed warnings about catastrophic AI risks, describing concerns about AI destroying humanity as a “hoax” and arguing that extensive regulation could undermine American competitiveness.

Tech Industry Also Calls for Rules

The political debate has become more complicated because some major AI companies are themselves calling for stronger government oversight.

OpenAI recently urged the U.S. government to establish mandatory national safety standards for advanced AI systems, including independent assessments, cybersecurity measures and reporting requirements for serious incidents. The company argued that voluntary commitments alone may not be sufficient.

Other technology leaders have similarly warned that increasingly capable AI systems could pose significant security and safety risks, although there is disagreement within the industry over how those risks should be addressed.

States Move Ahead

With Congress struggling to reach agreement, individual states have continued developing their own AI regulations, creating a growing patchwork of rules across the country. The dispute over whether federal legislation should override state AI laws has become one of the central issues in the debate.

The lack of a comprehensive federal framework could leave companies facing different requirements depending on where they operate, while supporters of federal regulation argue that a national approach would provide greater consistency.

Uncertain Path Ahead

For now, major legislation appears unlikely to move quickly. The House is approaching a lengthy recess, while lawmakers remain divided over whether AI presents an immediate emergency or requires a slower, more deliberate regulatory process.

The growing pressure from lawmakers, technology executives and the public means AI regulation is unlikely to disappear from Washington’s agenda. The central political challenge, however, remains finding a balance between preventing serious risks and ensuring that regulation does not weaken U.S. innovation or its position in the global AI race.