On Lion of the Desert’s trial

by Joshua Zuckerman

Lion of the Desert, a film by Moustapha Akkad, is an extremely well-portrayed film that highlights the struggle of Omar Al-Mukhtar against the Italian subjugation of Libya during the 1920s. However, while being a film based almost entirely on real events, the film takes some liberties for the sake of dramatizing the story. One specific event of note is the trial of Omar Mukhtar, in which an Italian lawyer is depicted defending Mukhtar and justifying his actions as those of someone not under Italian rule. However, this event never transpired in reality during Omar Mukhtar’s trial. Due to this, the film’s historical accuracy loses some level of credibility, leaving the audience to ponder the true nature of the trial.

The scene begins with Omar Mukhtar admitting to attacks against Italian soldiers and being armed at the time of his capture. However, Captain Lontano, an Italian Army officer serving in Libya during the Second Italo-Senussi War, defends him by asserting that, due to his refusal to submit to Italian rule and his lack of receipt of any money or rewards for good behavior during the Italian subjugation of Libya, he must be treated as a prisoner of war. Realizing that this event didn’t occur, viewers may wonder why it was included. The answer is simple: by portraying Omar Mukhtar as openly described as a prisoner of war during the trial, it emphasizes the unjust nature of his trial and underscores the fact that Omar Mukhtar never received assistance from Italy, nor did he ever submit to their rule.

The scene then continues with the judge stating that Captain Lontano “overstepped [his] orders,” as he was only instructed to defend Omar Mukhtar from the charge of treason rather than attempt to discredit the fairness of the charge. This continuation of the fictional scene emphasizes that Omar Mukhtar was openly known to have never submitted to Italian rule, opposing their colonization of Libya for 20 years. This raises the question: Why did the Italians hang Mukhtar rather than treat him as a prisoner of war? The movie implies that by executing Mukhtar, they hoped to quell the resistance as a whole. Omar Mukhtar represented the face of the Libyan resistance to Italian colonization, and Italy sought to make an example of him by hanging him in public, as depicted in both the film and historical records. This, followed by the public outcry shown in the film after his execution, illustrates the impact of his death on the resistance, severely weakening it despite galvanizing efforts to repel Italian colonization.

In conclusion, Omar Mukhtar’s “trial” was never truly a trial. Italy’s goal was always to execute Mukhtar in hopes of crushing the resistance. Although it achieved some success, it also paved the way for generational resistance to colonization and a continued desire for Libyan independence. By fictionalizing this scene, Akkad drew attention to the unfair treatment and execution of Mukhtar, portraying him as a hero who died for his beliefs rather than a (forced) Italian citizen who committed treason.