The Israeli Film Directors Pushing for a Reckoning in Their Home Country

This message is brought to you by Applecard.

The fall season always brings its fair share of surprises.

Like the first snow, or a late night trip to the store for your kid's school project.

No matter what the season brings, Applecard's got you covered.

You can earn 2% daily cashback when you use Applecard with Apple Pay.

Apply for Applecard now and use in minutes with Apple Pay.

Subject to credit approval.

Applecard is issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA South Lake City Branch, terms and more at Applecard.com.

From the New York Times,

I'm Rachel Abrams and this is the Daily.

The special jury prize goes to Naza by Yuval Abraham and Rachel Sazorn.

Documentary Naza received widespread acclaim when a premiered last month at the Venice Film Festival.

The won a top prize and it got a record-breaking standing ovation for 25 minutes.

But reception for the film in Israel could not be more different.

The two Israeli directors are being accused of damaging Israel's reputation in the world and of betraying their own country.

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

has said that he proposed legislation that could revoke the filmmaker's citizenship.

All of this, despite the fact that the film has not been released in Israel.

Naza investigates the methods that the Israeli army used in Gaza.

In the aftermath of the Hamas-led attacks on a topper 7.

From dark rooftops and Tel Aviv,

the film features testimony from 24 anonymous military intelligence officers and soldiers.

Okay, they deserve it.

They discuss both the military policies that led to the killing of thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza

and their partner.

The Israeli military has pushed back on the film, saying that it misrepresents its efforts to avoid harming civilians.

And so today, we speak to the directors of Naza, Yuval Abraham and Rachel Shore,

about their film and about how they're pushing for a reckoning in their home country.

It's Monday, October 12th.

Rachel Shore, Yuval Abraham, welcome to the Daily.

Thank you. Thank you.

I think it's sort of fair to say that the two of you are experiencing some extremes.

Your film, Naza, got a standing ovation.

Actually, it was a record-breaking standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival.

And at the same time, the film, even though most Israelis have not seen it,

because it hasn't been released there, has inspired a lot of anger back in Israel.

Rachel, for example, I understand that there have been protesters outside of your family's house.

Yeah.

So I just want to ask you guys both just how you're doing, how you're feeling in this moment.

Yeah, it's been intense.

The response has been very aggressive towards the film.

You know, the demonstrations next to my parents' house were calling to hang us,

like a lot, a lot of violence towards us.

But I think we also feel that it at least also create some sort of conversation about what we

have done in doing in Gaza, because for the last three years, there hasn't been any conversation

about this. And just to say that we made this film in Hebrew with testimonies of the soldiers,

because we want to reach the Israeli society.

Yeah, I agree. I mean, that's what I try to hold onto as some kind of meaning in all of this,

that in Israel was saying, in the conversations that have now been sparked as a result of the film.

And I think, you know, part of the reason why we made this film is to try to make sense of the

extremely large number of civilians that were killed by our country, by Israel in Gaza.

But yeah, it's not an easy situation. I mean, we want to go back home to Israel, which is our home,

but we can't go back to Netanyahu just a few days ago said that our film is like a ballistic missiles

being targeted at Israel. I mean, there's a total atmosphere of incitement. The death threats have

been so many that people who love us, like our parents, our friends, everyone is telling us,

don't come back. Like it's not it's not safe for you right now to go back.

I want to talk about the film that has inspired all of this now.

The premise of the film, the way you actually made it, is actually kind of simple. It's you,

you've all on rooftops in Tel Aviv at night talking to 24 different Israeli intelligence officers

and soldiers about the war in Gaza.

And the conversations, if I may, seem to be really about two things. On the one hand,

they are about the casualties, the civilian casualties in Gaza and the tools that the IDF uses,

such as AI and master of aliens. But the film is also very much about how these folks that are

talking to you are explaining and justifying what they have done both to you and also it feels

like to themselves. And I think it'll be helpful if we can start with perhaps you've all explaining

the title of this film, which is Gaza. Can you just walk us through what Gaza means?

Gaza stands for Nezaka Gavir. These are two words in Hebrew that can be translated as collateral

damage in English or incidental damage. The way in which Israeli intelligence officers use

this term is to indicate the number of civilians that they expect will be harmed at a particular

air strike. It's like a euphemism as a substitute for saying human beings. So if an air strike has

an anticipated number of 15 civilian casualties, meaning 15, you know, women, men, children who are not

the target of the strike, but the army knows it will likely kill them or harm them, then they use

the word Naza. They use this word collateral damage. So they won't say 15 men, women children say

15 Naza or 20 Naza. The word, as you mentioned, is euphemistic and we're going to get into what

points your film makes about that word. I want to just talk first about the people in the movie. Can

you just tell us a little bit more about who these 24 people are and the roles that they played?

Of course. So these are 24 Israeli intelligence officers and soldiers, all of whom were involved

in either the mass surveillance or the remote killing of Palestinians in Gaza. They have varying

roles, like different degrees of seniority and different roles within the army. Most of them

belong to the so-called Israeli intelligence community. Just to be very clear, these are not folks

who are mostly in Gaza. These are folks who are operating for the military from within Israel.

Yes, and these are individuals who generally speaking come from upper middle upper class,

relatively good education. Many of them are secular. They don't necessarily belong to the kind

of families who would vote for Netanyahu or for Ben Gveel or for Smotrich. Ben Gveer and Smotrich,

of course, are right-wing Israeli politicians just to say. Yes, absolutely. So these are individuals

who are part of Israel's liberal elites. That is the kind of profile, I would say, of the people who

are doing this remote surveillance and remote killing. And a lot of these soldiers, officers are

considered leftist and you can connect it to Tel Aviv, which is a city that is considered as

the liberal capital of Israel. And as you see in the film, actually in the heart of the city,

there's the main headquarters of the army. So some of these operations are actually being

operated from there. And Tel Aviv is only 40 miles away from Gaza, but you can almost not tell

that these things are happening from that city. I want to get to the revelations in the film.

So let's talk about what the film actually revealed. What these conversations revealed to you

about how the Israeli army targeted members of Hamas in Gaza after the October 7th attacks on

Israelis by Hamas? Well, it's a film packed with revelations, but I think one is the

the way in which the targeting systems that were used by Israeli intelligence to look for these

Hamas members specifically looked for them inside private houses. And when you want to bomb

so many targets, houses are a very convenient place because people come back home to sleep in their

house. One officer describes a system called where his daddy, which spied on the family members

of these targets through mass surveillance technology and waited to get signals or alerts that

they are coming back to their houses. And it's important to note, these are not houses where military

activity had to be taking place on the contrary. So it was much more difficult to find Hamas members

when they were engaged in military activity or even when they were just walking around. There was

something about waiting for the individual to come home when they are sleeping at night, which was

just easier. And to me, this decision to bomb people in their houses is part of the reason why

we saw thousands of Palestinian families being just killed wiped out multiple generations,

the babies, the toddlers, the children, the women, the majority of them were killed inside residential

buildings. The reason why I think this moment stood out to me, this particular revelation was

because it sort of complicated the narrative that you often hear from Israel that Hamas uses

human shields and operates out of civilian infrastructure like hospitals and schools, for instance.

And your film does not dispute that just to be very clear. But the point that it is making is that

the IDF targeted people in their homes because that is where they could find them. You know,

they would go home and put their cell phone next to their bed. And if the IDF was tracking the cell

phone, then it would know where this person was. And it was not necessarily, as you said, because

Hamas was operating out of that house. And so targeting the person in their house often meant

killing a person's family. And in that way, it complicates Hamas using human shields.

Yes, these buildings were not being bombed because there was Hamas military activity happening

from those buildings. So it wasn't as if someone was launching rockets or sniper sitting on the roof.

It's just easy to get them in their houses. They go home to sleep. And we designed a system

predicated on mass surveillance that routinely and systematically on a massive scale marks

those places, those private houses as a target. And you know, we have this image of an intelligence

officer sitting looking at the screen with air conditioner in the room and not really knowing what

they're doing, but they actually opening the phone of the target or actually also of their family

members. And they can hear what's happening inside the house.

One of the soldiers described they would actually hear what's happening before. And then also

what's happening after they bombed.

They would hear a conversation between a couple, a baby crying. Were you surprised at that level

of surveillance, at that level of sort of intimacy that the film claims to be happening?

Yeah, I think it was it was surprising because it kind of breaks this image that you have

of how much the soldiers know before and after they bombed and the families.

The film makes some claims about how the Israeli military uses AI. You've all you have been

writing about the war since it began as a journalist. You were among the first journalists to

write about the use of AI. And I wonder if you all if you just want to explain that a little bit.

Yes, so the way it worked according to sources that we've spoken with is that the army had a group

of individuals that they believed were part of the Hamas military wing. And then they had a machine

learning algorithm that kind of learned the way in which the phones of these individuals behaved

and identified identifying features. So it could be, for example, you know, other people are

saving them on their contact lists as Hamas members or these are phones that are often

in the vicinity of Hamas training compounds or these are phones that repeatedly change their

phone number because that's how militants may operate. And then it scans the phones of almost

every single person in Gaza who has a phone. And it gave them a rating based on how similar

their phone patterns were to that existing group of people who were identified as as Hamas and

KHA members by Israeli intelligence. And what sources tell us in the film is that this AI-based

list of Hamas members in certain areas of the military was used without needing to verify it

further. So it was used as like a soul incriminator even though the people designing it and the

military knew that it had an error rate. But you know, to me, the main issue here with AI is not

the mistakes. I think the main issue with AI is the scale that it enables. When you have AI that

can just mark, you know, 10th of South ends of so-called targets, junior targets that's nobody in the

army probably even remembers what their names are. And instead of spending, you know, an hour in

order to bomb one house, you can designate dozens of houses for bombing with little human involvement.

One of the claims in the movie that has gotten a lot of attention and criticism is this claim for

one officer in particular that one strike on a Hamas target was approved with the knowledge that

as many as 500 civilians could be killed or injured. The Times has reported before my colleagues

here at the paper have reported on how these really military has loosened its restrictions on how

many civilians can be endangered in a specific attack. And we have reported that in certain instances

approval has been given to kill or injure more than 100 people. But 500 as stated in your film by

this one person goes farther than what the New York Times has reported. It's also something that the

IDF we should note has specifically disputed. And I just want to understand from you both, how did

you corroborate that specific claim from this person? This is a film that was done in collaboration with

the Guardian, with the investigations of this at the Guardian. We would have not put in this

testimony of that soldier if we were not fully confident that it's true. And if we did not have and we

do have multiple other sources who have confirms that number. And we also have specificity that we've

just not made public yet about when that strike took place, where it took place, we understand it's

an explosive claim. And the fact that there is one person in the film speaking about it,

it does not mean that it has not been verified by multiple people that we've spoken with.

I guess what I'm really getting at is if you did all this work to corroborate such an

incendiary claim, if you had other people telling you the same thing, why not put an indication of

that homework in the film? Because there are a lot of people that you probably want to reach with

this movie who are going to look for any reason to dismiss the claims in this film. And I wonder if

you think that like in hindsight, perhaps it just would have helped make people more receptive to

what you are trying to tell them. No, I think that the film makes it case very, very convincingly.

And the film has a kind of language as well. I mean, there is no narration in the film. I mean,

it's also a work of cinema. And as a device, we don't, it doesn't use that, you know,

this claim, we have four sources, this claim, which is a very journalistic device that I do use

often when I write an investigative story in written text. But all I can say is that we are very

confident. Of course, people can always pick and choose what to focus on. Sure, of course.

But I think a good faith person who listens to the film should feel that it is bulletproof.

And as I said before, the claims that are made in the film are claims that we have verified

from multiple sources. You've all, did you go to the IDF with these claims before the film came out

before coming out with the movie? We went to the IDF over three years with, we've written, as I

said, over a dozen articles about about these reliminatories firing policies, about the way in which

technology and surveillance technology. And we, we went, we approached them for comments every

single time. And the film reflects the, the, the, the gist of, you know, the IDF and these,

these ready governments position with regards to this through, through, through Netanyahu. I mean,

we, we juxtaposed, we interweave Netanyahu throughout the film, speaking of defending

the Israeli bombing campaign. And we, yeah, that's, that's there. Yeah.

In public statements, the Israeli military has said that the film presents, quote,

a distorted misleading and disingenuous picture. It says that the army and its commanders

devote, quote, exceptional effort and detail, end quote, into assessing and trying to mitigate

harm to civilians while fighting Hamas, including by canceling planned attacks. The military also says

that legal advisors review proposed airstrikes to ensure that they comply with international law.

Any violations, it says, are investigated.

After the break, we speak with you, Baldwin Rachel, about the psychological impact of the war,

on the officers and the soldiers who appear in the film.

We'll be right back.

This podcast is supported by Netflix, presenting the epic new film La Bola Negra.

Awards Watch proclaims it the best film of the year.

Winner of the People's Choice Award at the Toronto International Film Festival,

and best director winner at the Cannes Film Festival. La Bola Negra has been hailed as the great

sweeping romance of the year, starring breakout actors Gitarica de la Fuente and Carlos Gonzalez

with Panale Pichruz and Glenn Close. In the Wire Raves, it's a work of staggering genius.

La Bola Negra, only in beaters October 16th. Get tickets now.

Why do most running brands force your toes into tight pony shoes? At ultra, we think shoes should

be shaped like actual feet. That's why our shoes have the ultra fit with room for your toes.

Your toes engage for powerful strides, your feet are comfortable, and you get natural balance.

Check out Altar running shoes at ultrarunning.com slash the daily and use code daily 10 for 10% off

your first purchase. Exclusions in terms of apply. Plus, you can use your HSA FSA funds with

TrueMed. Check your eligibility at truemed.com slash Altar.

Think about the last expense report you filed. What if the receipt chasing and category guessing

disappeared? With ramp, expenses submit themselves. Text or email your receipt and ramp categorizes

codes and submits it for you. Ramp also helps employees book approved flights and hotels.

Time is money. Save both with ramp. New customers get $250 off at ramp.com slash the daily.

Go to ramp.com slash the daily. ramp.com slash the daily.

These officers, at least to me, it felt like they were really grappling with the role that they

were playing in the war. One thing that comes across really strongly is the distance. The distance

between the people in the film and the actual act of killing. I wonder if you both feel like

one of the reasons why that kind of distance developed or was allowed to develop. At least initially

it was because of how horrendous the October 7th attacks were, the taking of the hostages,

who were not released for a very long time. We know of course that created this huge psychological

trauma in Israeli society. I just wondered how that affected the mindset of the people you spoke

with when they first entered the war. Absolutely. Of course, it had a huge effect. It's a huge trauma

for Israeli society. The massacre was horrific. There was a lot of anger. How much was

the war? There were soldiers in the film saying how they felt after the October 7th attacks and

needs to go to the army and need to do something. Of course, there is a context of trauma. I know

that were killed and murdered on that day on October 7th. It cannot. It does not justify the

raising down of entire cities in Gaza to the grounds. Massacres that have happened again and again

at food sites. The shooting on one armed civilians that are trying to go back to their

destroyed neighborhoods. The murder of so many people. The killing of more than 73,000 people,

most of them civilians. There's always this fine line between context and justification.

Because context is not justification. We say the same thing about October 7th. It's completely

unjustified. Of course, you can talk about context. You can talk about Gaza being under siege.

You can talk about Palestinians living under Israeli occupation without a state for

a... None of that justifies a massacre of civilians. The killing of people dancing at a party,

the kidnapping of children. It's horrific. None of us should accept something like that.

We should be careful in this line between context and justification. We should always be careful

when speaking about any crime, whether it was committed against Palestinians or against Israelis.

I wonder how you felt their mindset changed as the war went on. When they got a little bit of,

at least in terms of time, distance from the October 7th attack. Can you just describe a little bit

how people may have changed their point of view about the civilian casualties? Are there

attitudes towards civilian casualties in Gaza? Well, I think the people that we've spoken with

obviously changed their attitude over time because they came in and they slowly realized,

you know, okay, we came into the military after October 7th, but we are now involved in very,

very severe crimes. There is this moment in the film where one of the officers says,

I'm focused on this individual that I want to kill inside the house. And I don't think about

anything that happens on the way. And there's a moment where he says, but actually we know that these

children are there. We know that they are going to be killed. It is intentional. And there was

a moment when he just sort of realized that. He's an officer who says he believes he took a part

in a genocide. Coming from the perspective of an intelligence officer that works

inside this framework of targets and collateral damage, I think a lot of them said, well,

look, we're not saying that the civilians are the target, but the end result is going to be the

same end result. It's the calculated and anticipated killing of countless civilians of entire families.

And we should say that Israel, of course, has vigorously denied any claims and accusations of

genocide. Rachel, you were the cinematographer on this film. Just visually, how did you think about

how to underscore the idea of distance in the shots that you showed from daily activity in Tel Aviv?

Yeah. So basically what you see in the film in between the interviews is you look inside people's

apartment. You see the life of Tel Aviv inside the apartments. And I think one of the things that we

we decided to concentrate on and to show is is also something that was very, very strong in the

Israeli society after the seventh of October and also before, which is watching the news at 8 o'clock.

It's like some sort of a ritual. Everybody sits and watch the news and the channel that you see that

most of the people are watching, it's the mainstream media. And also you you hear a bit the way

they're describing what Israel is doing in Gaza and they use words like tarot targets. The words

they use are also showing some sort of of a distance. So I think that was also part of the choice

of focusing on the life of people in their apartments. Rachel, I want to ask one last thing about

the the look and feel of the film. As we had already mentioned, it is mostly shot with you all

speaking to your sources on rooftops and Tel Aviv. But there's one scene from Gaza, really one moment

at the end of the film. And to the point about trying to combat the dehumanization of Palestinian,

that's that's the work you're trying to do here. I would love to hear about how you thought about

how to use footage from Gaza, specifically the decision to use it so sparingly and only at the end

of the movie. We just couldn't take the risk of people finishing the film and not understanding

the full gravity of what is being said. It's not some sort of a reflection film of soldiers talking

from their memories far away. I mean, these things are still happening now. So I think we just

it was important for us to include it and to make sure that each viewer that will finish the film

will see the result of all the systems of killing that were described throughout the film.

The killing in Gaza continued and continued for two years up until the ceasefire of October 2025

and to some degree, it's still continuing to this day that there's been over a thousand Palestinians

killed since that ceasefire. One person in the film actually compares what he has done to the Nazis.

And I want to focus on this for a second because that is such an inflammatory thing for in

Israel to say and I'm just sort of curious about your choice to include it.

Yeah, he wasn't the only one, by the way, who says that they thought about the Second World War

and they thought about the genocide of the Jewish people. And he described growing up in the

Israeli education system and thinking about the perpetrators of the Holocaust and the perpetrators

of crimes as pure evil. And he could not understand how one would do it. And he says in the film,

well, I feel like I have, I'm paraphrasing a little bit, but he says I have a better understanding now

of the role of the perpetrator. And I think that this is not at all like it's not to make a simplistic

comparison. I don't think there is any comparison between the Holocaust and what happened in Gaza.

I don't. But I do think that there is an importance there of thinking about, again, without

making a simplistic comparison, without saying that it's the same, it's not the same. But there are

common patterns of demonization as the soldier was saying. There are things that we can learn about

being a perpetrator and understanding that better in order to prevent crimes from recurring in the

future, which I feel are important. The way I kind of looked at it was that we're in this moment

right now where the world, a lot of the world has this incredibly negative view of Israel and

isemotism is on the rise. Many Israelis feel like they are in this existential battle for survival.

I wonder how you feel about this larger criticism that this movie could be seized on by people

who are interested in talking about things completely irrelevant to what the film is actually

talking about that it basically could feed antisemitism as I think sort of the thing that's

being unspoken here. I'm terrified of antisemitism. It is on the rise. You're absolutely right. There

are horrible bad faith actors on the right, but also on the left. And I hear that and I'm not trying

to dismiss that at all Rachel really. But I think at the same time I will say that I don't think

that should stop us from being truthful and factual. So I think what are we saying here that we

cannot report about these facts because they, you know, it may increase antisemitism. There's a

responsibility to be very clear to oppose antisemitism completely. It's appalling, but that cannot

seep into not being truthful and factual as a journalist. Just as by the way you mentioned

October the 7th, imagine someone saying, well, if we report about the atrocities that Hamas is

committed and they have committed horrible atrocities, the massacre, the kidnapping of children,

by reporting on that, by journalists doing their work and reporting on that, they would be making

the Israeli response in Gaza much more lethal, much more vengeful. They will, we just as journalists,

we just need to be truthful to reality and we should take into consideration and into account what

you're saying. We shouldn't dismiss it. But I think that is our role.

You both at this point are very recognizable. You mentioned that you're not in Israel right now,

but you hope to go back. Obviously there are these very looming safety concerns. But I would imagine

that like walking down the street, people can spot you, people can say things to you. If you're

talking about wanting to go back at some point, what do you imagine your life to be like? Just even

trying to resume, I don't know anything resembling what your life looked like before this movie.

Well, it's a good question. I've been thinking about it myself. The honest answer is that I don't

know. I think we will go back eventually and I hope that I can continue my work as a journalist

and as a filmmaker. And if it means I can't walk as freely as I could before in certain areas of

Israel that are more right-wing, then that's maybe a price that I will pay. I'm not the only one. I

mean, people are constantly paying very heavy prices for the work that they're doing much heavier

than this kind of price. So I don't want to act the victim. I mean, I'm not. Like we did

something that we believe is important and we believe is true and people should watch it. And we

know that sometimes these kinds of things can come with a certain price. Israel is our home. And like,

our work has been motivated and is motivated by a sense that we want to change. You know, we want to

change the place. We want policies that we disagree with to change and we want the place to be

better for Israelis and for Palestinians. And I want to see this place that I was born in

to be a place not where there is people dying every day and horrible violence and stress. And

it's really it became the holy lands, you know, Israel, Palestine. It can be a better place.

And I do think that there will be no future to anyone if we do not have an honest reckoning

with the present and with the past.

You've all Abraham Rachel Shore. Thank you so much for spending so much time with us.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Rachel.

We'll be right back.

This podcast is supported by Netflix presenting the epic new film La Bola Negra.

Awards Watch proclaims at the best film of the year.

Winner of the People's Choice Award at the Toronto International Film Festival

and best director winner at the Cannes Film Festival. La Bola Negra has been hailed as the great

sweeping romance of the year, starring breakout actors Gita Rika de la Fuente and Carlos Gonzalez

with Panale Pichruz and Glenn Close. Indie Wire Raves. It's a work of staggering genius.

La Bola Negra, only in theaters October 16th. Get tickets now. Support for this podcast comes from

Dell Technologies. It's time to put AI to work. Is your business ready? The challenge isn't getting

started with AI. It's scaling beyond pilots while maintaining control of your data, governance,

infrastructure, and costs. Dell AI Factory provides the Integrated Foundation you need to scale AI

securely and efficiently with one trusted partner, Dell AI on your terms. From idea to impact.

Learn more at Dell.com slash your way to AI. That's Dell.com slash your way to AI.

We all love to connect via video call, a text, or a group chat that never stops.

And right now AT&T has a deal that will keep the connection going.

The new iPhone 18 Pro has the most advanced iPhone camera ever,

and a big leap in battery life. So you can turn this deal into a long lasting connection.

Learn how you can get the new iPhone 18 Pro for zero dollars with an eligible trade-in at AT&T.

Connecting changes everything. Require a trade-in of 230 dollars or more an eligible plan.

Terms and restrictions apply, subject to change. Visit an AT&T store for details.

Here's what else you need to know today. The capitals of Saudi Arabia and Yemen were both

hit in a series of strikes on Sunday. A day after Saudi Arabia suffered its deadliest attack

in over a decade. In that attack, the Houthis, the Iran-backed militant group,

struck an international airport in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, killing at least 12 people

and injuring more than 300. It was the Houthis third fatal strike on the airport this past week,

shattering Saudi Arabia's sense of safety and remove from its war with neighboring Yemen.

Where Saudi Arabia has been waging a bombing campaign against the Houthis that has killed 91

people since September 3rd according to the Houthi run health ministry in Yemen.

And President Trump said on Friday that he had reached an agreement with Russia to

immediately import Russian diesel fuel to the US market. An extraordinary development between the

two countries after years of American sanctions on Russian energy exports during the war in Ukraine.

The move is an attempt by the Trump administration to contain soaring energy prices due to the war

with Iran, one of the biggest political liabilities for Republicans heading into next month's midterms.

Energy experts, however, say the deal is not likely to have a major impact on the cost of diesel.

Today's episode was produced by Ricky Novetsky and Claire Tenniskeder,

with help from Carlos Prieto. It was edited by Maria Burn with help from Paige Cowatt and Rob Zipko.

Research helped by Susan Lee, contains music by Dan Powell and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley.

Our theme music is by Wunderly, special thanks to Aaron Boxerman, David Helpfinger,

Yara Biyumi and Disbil Kirschner.

That's it for the Daily. I'm Rachel Abrams. See you tomorrow.

This message comes from Betterment. Betterment Stan Egan talks about tax loss harvesting.

Tax loss harvesting is a tax management strategy. When you have a position that's gone down

over time, we intentionally sell out of it to realize a loss, which we then say to the IRS,

hey, we lost money. You get to use that to offset your ordinary income every year decreasing your

tax burden. Investing involves risk performance not guaranteed. Betterment does not offer tax

advice. TLH may not be suitable for all customers. Learn more at betterment.com slash TLH-Terms.