I posted this in another thread and thought I would ask the great minds here in OTB the same.

I wonder if anyone knows of any films prior to 1967 that reference Palestinians? As you know from that other thread, I'm watching this TV series Rome and they have Jews in it who want to get the Romans out of Judea (why not feature Palestinians trying to get the Romans out?). And in the old Charlton Heston film Ben-Hur (1959) it is about Romans and Jews in Judea. Of course there's Ten Commandments (1956). Those are just some examples. There MUST be some reference to the Palestinians in film history too at some point? If not in Hollywood (which has been heavily dominated by Jews) then in the film industry of other countries?

interesting question......

Although it could also be like the American Indian nations that did not do anything film wise.

Did see this though............

http://tari.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59:palestine-already-exists-on-film-by-sabah-haider&catid=2:publications-select-books-and-articles&Itemid=64

excerpt..........

Other symbols are the original map of Palestine (pre-1948), the land itself, and the Palestinian flag. History shows that, as humans, we rely on symbols to project our identity when our voices and actions can’t (in France, Bastille Day wouldn’t be the same without the French flag); and the Palestinian flag is the foremost symbol of solidarity, resistance and nationalism in the new wave films.

Suleiman’s Divine Intervention and Abu Assad’s Paradise Now, for example, depend on relating the atmosphere of Israeli occupation and the landscape of the Occupied Territories to the characters; it gives them a context and also becomes part of the narrative.

Also this......

1948

1948 - The film follows five Palestinians for one year and at the same time describes how the Palestinians lost their country in 1948. The film has met with much criticism for its one-sided focus on the Palestinians, but it was this factor which was among the jury's ...Joergen Flindt Pedersen's controversial documentary The Occupied (De Besatte) won the Grand Prix at the 18th edition of the Danish short and documentary film festival in Odense over the weekend.

interesting question......

Although it could also be like the American Indian nations that did not do anything film wise.

Irrelevent. There are no Romans around to make films either yet they have been mentioned and highlighted in film more than a millenia later. My question has nothing at all to do with whether or not Palestinians created films about themselves or not. I mentioned the Jews in Hollywood because surely someone would claim that's the only reason Cecil B. Demille made it - twice (1956 & 1923).

SURELY, being the apparent historical figures that they are, Palestinians have been mentioned in film before? That 1948 film your link mentions, in the film itself, were they refered to as Palestinians? Or is that a designation added years later?

After David slew Goliath the then-Palestinians were driven out or made into slaves (they were Philistines - same word with different pronunciation).

After the Romans drove the Jews/Hebrews out in AD 73 other people started to creep in from the surrounding areas. They came from what is now Lebanon and Egypt, Saudi and Jordan, Iraq and Syria. Not one people, but a lot of peasants hungry for land and prepared to accept Roman rule and pay Roman taxes.

This went on until the collapse of the Roman Empire, after which a 'dark ages' condition existed for a couple of hundred years until the rise of Islam. Then they were subjugated to the tribal chiefs bursting out of Arabia.

They continued scraping an existence by farming and pilgrimage until the Crusades. After the Crusades came the Ottoman Empire, after the First World War came the Palestine Mandate (a part of the carve up of the Middle East by Britain and France). Then WW2 and the birth of Israel.

There have been plenty of films about the birth of Islam and it's spread across North Africa to Spain, also about the Crusades. And Lawrence and Co., during WWI. And the birth of Israel after WWII.

But the Palestinians were just peasants with parts as extras, if anywhere. Nothing interesting ever happens to peasant farmers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Palestine didn't exist until 1918? Presumably the people were there, but as HB says, they were just peasant farmers, and people don't make films about peasant farmers' history. (There weren't any Iraqis until then either)

If you are going to quote an article, you may only quote the first three sentences and then post a link to the remainder of the article. This is the policy of fair use.

Posts have been edited and one has been deleted with no credit to the author.

After David slew Goliath the then-Palestinians were driven out or made into slaves (they were Philistines - same word with different pronunciation).

Sorry but, the Philistines were a completely different people.

interesting question......

Although it could also be like the American Indian nations that did not do anything film wise.

Irrelevent. There are no Romans around to make films either yet they have been mentioned and highlighted in film more than a millenia later. My question has nothing at all to do with whether or not Palestinians created films about themselves or not.

Yes perhaps I worded it badly....Meant they were not depicted in the same fashion/reason

Same as the Romans or any other depiction.

How many of these nations were depicted in films...not fantasy John Wayne type films ( Same for Roman fantasy films like Ben Hur/ 10 commandments etc. )

Who knows long after the Palestinians or Israelis are gone... perhaps there will be movies depicting them in a light none can be sure to be accurate either.

I cannot help but think this question of yours is a side entry into a bigger explanation you would like to make/claim.

If so just claim it......If not ignore my guess

Yes perhaps I worded it badly....Meant they were not depicted in the same fashion/reason

Same as the Romans or any other depiction.

How many of these nations were depicted in films...not fantasy John Wayne type films ( Same for Roman fantasy films like Ben Hur/ 10 commandments etc. )

Who knows long after the Palestinians or Israelis are gone... perhaps there will be movies depicting them in a light none can be sure to be accurate either.

I cannot help but think this question of yours is a side entry into a bigger explanation you would like to make/claim.

If so just claim it......If not ignore my guess

Our history is constantly being revised. Film/TV/novels from the past can capture the way the world was viewed at that time.

If you watch a modern movie about the 1940's, you might not see anyone smoking. If you watch films made in the 1940's people were smoking all over the place.

Another example is how terrorism and al Qaeda were viewed before 9/11. Both the Democrats and Republican blame each other for not doing enough beforehand. The fact is, no one really took terrorism seriously. My TV example of this is The West Wing, a very popular show at the time about the going ons in the White House with Martin Sheen as the President. Shows like this are a mirror of what is going on in the country at the time. Of all the episodes starting in May 2000, not a single one touched on islamo-terrorism until their 55th episode - Season 3, Episode 13 which aired on Feb 6, 2002. Just a reminder that the USS Cole was attacked by al Qaeda in October 2000. I guess the writers - like presidential candidates Bush and Gore at the time - didn't think it important enough.

http://www.tv.com/th...ator;1&season=1

The underlying question to this thread is that if a people called Palestinians existed before the 1970's then why haven't they ever been mentioned anywhere in world cinema for the 60 years prior?

Yes perhaps I worded it badly....Meant they were not depicted in the same fashion/reason

Same as the Romans or any other depiction.

How many of these nations were depicted in films...not fantasy John Wayne type films ( Same for Roman fantasy films like Ben Hur/ 10 commandments etc. )

Who knows long after the Palestinians or Israelis are gone... perhaps there will be movies depicting them in a light none can be sure to be accurate either.

I cannot help but think this question of yours is a side entry into a bigger explanation you would like to make/claim.

If so just claim it......If not ignore my guess

Our history is constantly being revised. Film/TV/novels from the past can capture the way the world was viewed at that time.

If you watch a modern movie about the 1940's, you might not see anyone smoking. If you watch films made in the 1940's people were smoking all over the place.

Another example is how terrorism and al Qaeda were viewed before 9/11. Both the Democrats and Republican blame each other for not doing enough beforehand. The fact is, no one really took terrorism seriously. My TV example of this is The West Wing, a very popular show at the time about the going ons in the White House with Martin Sheen as the President. Shows like this are a mirror of what is going on in the country at the time. Of all the episodes starting in May 2000, not a single one touched on islamo-terrorism until their 55th episode - Season 3, Episode 13 which aired on Feb 6, 2002. Just a reminder that the USS Cole was attacked by al Qaeda in October 2000. I guess the writers - like presidential candidates Bush and Gore at the time - didn't think it important enough.

http://www.tv.com/th...ator;1&season=1

The underlying question to this thread is that if a people called Palestinians existed before the 1970's then why haven't they ever been mentioned anywhere in world cinema for the 60 years prior?

The underlying question to this thread is that if a people called Palestinians existed before the 1970's then why haven't they ever been mentioned anywhere in world cinema for the 60 years prior?

They actually started calling themselves Palestinians around 1967. Before that they were assorted Arab immigrants from the surrounding countries.

The underlying question to this thread is that if a people called Palestinians existed before the 1970's then why haven't they ever been mentioned anywhere in world cinema for the 60 years prior?

since you have raised that question i have sleepless nights searching for an answer. even during daytime i have problems to concentrate on something else.

They actually started calling themselves Palestinians around 1967. Before that they were assorted Arab immigrants from the surrounding countries.

LOW AND BEHOLD! HEAR YE O ISRAEL! the eggsburt hath spoken!

The underlying question to this thread is that if a people called Palestinians existed before the 1970's then why haven't they ever been mentioned anywhere in world cinema for the 60 years prior?

They actually started calling themselves Palestinians around 1967. Before that they were assorted Arab immigrants from the surrounding countries.

Presumably the people living in Palestine under British Mandate from, I think, 1918 were Palestinians. What you're referring to, UG, is when they started calling themselves Palestinians after the creation of Israel in 1948-9.... or maybe after the 1967 war.

I think that Syrians is more likely, but it is hard to say because of all the different borders. Everyone in the area seemed to pay as little attention to what the British said about anything as possible.

The underlying question to this thread is that if a people called Palestinians existed before the 1970's then why haven't they ever been mentioned anywhere in world cinema for the 60 years prior?

since you have raised that question i have sleepless nights searching for an answer. even during daytime i have problems to concentrate on something else.

Well I guess we could also lose sleep over the fact that before 1939 there were no Thai people or Thailand either

Since history only depicts Yul Brenner as the King of Siam

I think there is a difference. There may not have been any Thai people before that date, but now there are no Siamese people.

I think there is a difference. There may not have been any Thai people before that date, but now there are no Siamese people.

:lol:

There's still the occasional couple of Siamese twins.

Usually not looking very Siamese, but often with the Yul Brynner hairstyle.

I can't think of any older films that refer to Sri Lankans, Zaireans or Zimbabweans either. Must mean that Sri Lankans have no right to the land they live on.

I fail to make the link between Palastinians in films and the right to the land they live on.

I fail to make the link between Palastinians in films and the right to the land they live on.

I think the supposition is that if they've not been in the movies they don't exist. Blame Walt!

Irrelevent. There are no Romans around to make films either yet they have been mentioned and highlighted in film more than a millenia later.

That's possibly because the Roman Empire completely changed the history of the Western world.

I fail to make the link between Palastinians in films and the right to the land they live on.

I think that this is the point that the OP is trying to make:

"Palestine has never existed - before or since - as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire, and briefly by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland. There was no language known as Palestinian. There was no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a Palestine governed by the Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc."

-Joseph Farah

However, there is always Jordan.

The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan,"

-King Hussein of Jordan, in 1981.

I fail to make the link between Palastinians in films and the right to the land they live on.

that's the subtle implication of this thread

I fail to make the link between Palastinians in films and the right to the land they live on.

that's the subtle implication of this thread

No it isn't.

The implication is that for a people who stake some historical claim to the land there is no reference to them before the 1970's so a claim based on history is invalid (whereas the Jews can make that claim). They are there now though and that's what matters most.

The implication is that for a people who stake some historical claim to the land there is no reference to them before the 1970's so a claim based on history is invalid (whereas the Jews can make that claim). They are there now though and that's what matters most.

The people now called Palestinians (the name presumably dates from the British mandate, whatever UG may say) have been there all the time... generally they were just referred to as Arabs, which is a name giving no real territorial indication. So have the Jews, though not so many of them. Arabs and Jews lived there side by side until the incursion of Jews following the increasing popularity of Zionism. The territorial problem which now exists is a direct result of the establishment of a Jewish (religious) state bang in the middle of an area otherwise populated entirely by Muslims.

I fail to make the link between Palastinians in films and the right to the land they live on.

that's the subtle implication of this thread

No it isn't.

The implication is that for a people who stake some historical claim to the land there is no reference to them before the 1970's so a claim based on history is invalid (whereas the Jews can make that claim). They are there now though and that's what matters most.

From Wiki, which article also supports Naam's claim, rubbished by UG, that the name derives from Philistine....mentioned in the Bible....is that far enough back for you?

Palestine (Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל Eretz-Yisra'el, formerly also פלשׂתינה, Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn) was a conventional name, among others, used between 450 BC and 1948 AD to describe a geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

The boundaries of the region have changed throughout history, and were first defined in modern times by the Franco-British boundary agreement (1920) and the Transjordan memorandum during the British Mandate for Palestine. Today, the region comprises the country of Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Today, the term Palestine is also used to refer to either the Palestinian territories or the State of Palestine.

Other terms for the same area include Canaan, Zion, the Land of Israel, Syria Palaestina, Southern Syria, Jund Filastin, Outremer, the Holy Land and the Southern Levant.^[6]

I fail to make the link between Palastinians in films and the right to the land they live on.

Although you're right that Palestinians in films is a dubious way to go about it, it is fairly obvious that the OP is trying to make a point about Palestinian claims to the land they live on. See post 26 to have that confirmed.

Perhaps the OP should have asked about history books instead of Hollywood interpretations.

The implication is that for a people who stake some historical claim to the land there is no reference to them before the 1970's so a claim based on history is invalid (whereas the Jews can make that claim). They are there now though and that's what matters most.

The people now called Palestinians (the name presumably dates from the British mandate, whatever UG may say) have been there all the time... generally they were just referred to as Arabs, which is a name giving no real territorial indication. So have the Jews, though not so many of them. Arabs and Jews lived there side by side until the incursion of Jews following the increasing popularity of Zionism. The territorial problem which now exists is a direct result of the establishment of a Jewish (religious) state bang in the middle of an area otherwise populated entirely by Muslims.

Good point.

A Texan is an American from the land area known as Texas. Who says Palestinians can not be Arabs also?

Come to that, .....ask an old Mexican about Texas. There are Texan Americans whose ancestors have lived there for centuries and were Mexican until the US took over the land. I daresay they are Mexican Texan Americans.