Fischberger Traces $2.05 Million in Open Society Grants to NAZA-Linked Organizations

Eitan Fischberger reports that organizations connected with NAZA’s media network received at least $2.05 million from the Soros family’s Open Society Foundations. His findings concern institutional funding and shared personnel, rather than proof that the foundation directly financed or commissioned the film.

In an investigation published on October 11, Fischberger shifts attention from the documentary’s allegations against Israel to the organizations that supported the reporting behind it. His argument is that the film emerged from an established network linking journalism, nonprofit funding and political advocacy.

The distinction matters: grants to an organization associated with a filmmaker are not automatically grants to that filmmaker’s production. Fischberger’s investigation itself acknowledges that it does not establish a Soros commission for NAZA.

Three recipients, one reported total

Fischberger identifies $1.125 million in Open Society grants to Just Vision, $400,000 to 972 Advancement of Citizen Journalism and $525,000 to the Guardian.org Foundation. Together, the three figures add up to $2.05 million.

The organizations occupy different positions in the network he describes. Just Vision co-publishes the Hebrew-language outlet Local Call, where NAZA co-director Yuval Abraham works. The 972 organization publishes +972 Magazine and operates Local Call jointly with Just Vision. Guardian.org is a philanthropic affiliate associated with The Guardian, which produced NAZA alongside JW Films.

The Guardian.org grants supported unrelated reporting projects, Fischberger writes. Including them establishes a funding relationship with a connected institution; it does not make that $525,000 part of NAZA’s production budget.

What the organizations disclose themselves

There is also primary source support for part of this institutional picture. +972’s own funding disclosures acknowledge Open Society support for Local Call and identify 972 Advancement of Citizen Journalism and Just Vision as co-grantees. Just Vision independently identifies itself as a Local Call co-publisher.

Those disclosures corroborate a funding relationship, rather than independently confirming every grant in Fischberger’s aggregate. Award totals, annual receipts and transfers between partners can describe different things. They should not be added together without checking for overlap.

The film’s institutional connections are not merely inferred from those grants. Venice’s official listing names Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor as directors and The Guardian and JW Films as producers. Close Up also lists NAZA among its 2025/2026 alumni.

Personnel links beyond the grants

Fischberger also reports Open Society connections involving Just Vision directors Sam Bahour and Anna Lefer Kuhn, Guardian.org board member Miguel Castro and documentary mentor Bruni Burres.

His account identifies Bahour with Open Society’s regional advisory board, Kuhn as a former Open Society Institute program officer and Castro as former Open Society staff. Burres, whom he identifies as a former Open Society consultant, is a founding partner and mentor at Close Up, the development initiative associated with NAZA.

These are reported professional and governance connections. They do not, by themselves, demonstrate that a donor directed the film’s editorial decisions.

Journalism, advocacy and the question of influence

Fischberger’s broader interpretation concerns political alignment. He points to public positions held by people in the network and reports that NAZA’s directors hoped the film would encourage Western sanctions and the withdrawal of support for Israel.

A Jewish Liberation Fund interview provides direct context for that debate. +972 resource development manager Dana Mills describes journalism as part of the outlet’s activism, while also asserting its commitment to professional standards.

For readers assessing NAZA, the useful question is therefore specific: which institutions funded the reporting environment, what roles did connected people hold, and which political objectives were openly stated? Fischberger offers an argument about that environment. Determining who paid for the film itself would require evidence connecting particular funds to its production. The reported $2.05 million should not be presented as an established film budget.

Main source: Eitan Fischberger’s investigation in Fisch Files, published October 11, 2026. Additional context: the organizations’ disclosures and official film listings.