Okay, one viewpoint is that it's broadly true, maybe with some exaggeration by the filmmakers and/or interviewees. It's very understandable that soldiers would want to stay anonymous in that version.

I don't think many people would buy your "more logical for them to just go on the record" claim -- in this situation, people are scared! And they have conflicted loyalties as well. They want to blow the whistle, but don't necessarily want to directly accuse their immediate colleagues to their faces.

Another viewpoint is that it's partly true but misleading -- the filmmakers and whistleblowers have blown things entirely out of proportion. That sounds entirely possible. But wouldn't the "logical" response then be more transparency, rather than accusations of treason and a witch-hunt for the collaborators?

And another viewpoint is that it's all completely fabricated, malicious lies. Possibly an extreme crackdown might be an appropriate response in that case? That seems very counter-productive to me, as an outsider, but again cold logic doesn't always apply.

Which of those viewpoints do you find yourself agreeing with?

To me, the broadly true one seems most likely from the available evidence; the hiding of evidence and the attempted crackdown support that one too. It also seems like some people genuinely believe (or pretend to themselves) that it's all malicious lies. To me that smacks of sheer paranoia. Understandable after the October 7 attack, sure, but not rational or productive.

My sense given what I’ve read is that it’s partly true but misleading (and there’s probably some outright lies). But even the idea of “misleading” is very difficult to define because we’re talking about moral judgments about how to conduct war.

For example, apparently in the film they recount a NAZA that was done for strikes to assassinate Hamas leaders in Gaza (NAZA is an acronym in Hebrew that means “collateral damage assessment”, these are done before all strikes in order to assess potential civilian casualties). In this particular case, the strike was planned to kill the Hamas leaders in their homes at night which would likely also kill their families, as opposed to some other time to kill them which would have more or less or different civilian casualties.

So in my opinion there is no issue with killing Hamas leaders in Gaza in their homes even if their families would also die but this may offend western sensibilities for various reasons including perhaps blanket opposition to killing or military conduct at all. But then again Western sensibilities have produced Western societies which have below replacement birth rates and various other social ills which Israelis cannot even conceive of because those issues do not exist in Israel. Jewish teenagers do not go and shoot up their schools, that is something only Arab terrorists do and the reason they do that is very obvious, as are the ways of preventing that.

In the most charitable interpretation, the filmmakers chose to make this film as Western liberals trying to influence the Israeli government to adopt more Western liberal values and approaches to conducting warfare. This is still traitorous conduct since they are aligned with a foreign ideology and interests who seek to do harm against their own state and their own people.