The criticism is undeserved

Dr Shaheen did slam the pic. But it's because he appears to be a moron.

1. He says Damascus is misrepresented in the film because it looks like a "5th world" country when in fact he claims it was a lovely place. He says he knows this because he was there in the 60's. He really thinks a city looks the same 40 years AFTER their revolution for independence? I would think it would look pretty bad during a war for independence and much better 40 years later, but I'm not a doctor of whatever.

2. He mentions that Bosley Crowther of the New York Times was upset at the way Damascus appears in an attempt to echo his own sentiments. However, Crowther's quote doesn't imply it doesn't look like Damascus because it isn't a beautiful place. It simply wasn't "arabian" enough to him. The quote is, "...no more suggestive of Damascus than a Shriners' convention in New Orleans, on which occasion you would see more fezzes than ever show up in this film."

3. In his opinion, you should have empathy for the Syrians fighting for independence, but the film skews it so that you side with the French. The beginning shows two French soldiers not caring about the plight of the poor Syrians, pushing and berating a man who just wants to sell his fruit before it spoils. Then the Gen wants to kill (in his words) "hostages" and "civilians". If anything, the beginning of the film shows the French in a horrible light.

4. He plays on the notion that the Syrians are portrayed as greedy, manipulative, and money-grubbing. Well, not all. Bogey's partner in crime isn't, nor is the waiter. Mostel's character merely saves his own skin and then even tries to warn Bogey. But yes, a large percentage are. Yet the one American in the film is portrayed the same way as many of the Syrians, so that's 100% of the Americans. American bias as well then? Of course not.

5. He says the Syrians in the film kill people at random. They actually seemed to target the military (see #6 below), while the French (in the Gen's own words) want to kill "hostages" and "civilians".

6. He says, "You never see the French killing any Arabs." Actually, you never SEE anyone getting killed. I believe all killings are off-screen. But off-screen, the Syrians kill a group of French military, then the Gen is talked out of killing 6 sympathizers (referred to as "hostages" and "civilians"). When Bogie is getting a shave, the French are attacking and shooting up the city. A grenade then blows up the cafe (targeting French soldiers again). The violence seems spread around to me except the Syrians seem to choose military targets while the French don't discriminate. A skewed stat. While you don't see dead Arab bodies, you see what the French want to do, and you hear them shooting into crowds and people scattering. They certainly seemed more villainous to me, but I'm not a doctor.

7. There's not much in the movie to make you remember it's 1925. Well, aside from it saying 1925 in the beginning, the fact that France is occupying Syria (this at the very least places it before WWII), the hand-cranked car, the gas lamps (although there were many bulbs as well), etc.. Now while it's certainly possible that Damascus was just behind the times, his gripe is that they weren't wearing period clothes throughout the movie? Just wow. Personally, I don't look at the clothes, the hairstyles, etc... to know when a movie takes place. I just look at the date flashed on the screen and simply remember it. Perhaps the good doctor's memory fails?

The movie clearly shows in the beginning that both sides believe they are right and both sides believe to have God on their side. To me, the movie VERY clearly shows that both sides are terrible, there are no winners in war, and the only redeeming characters are the Col and the Maj since they are advocates of peace.