Pierre Nora’s seminal theory of Lieux de mémoire (sites of memory) emerged as a critical response to the accelerated pace of modernity and the consequent rupture from living traditions. He posits that pre-modern societies were embedded in “milieux de mémoire” (environments of memory)—organic, unselfconscious social frameworks where tradition was continuously and naturally transmitted through rituals, oral histories, and lived experiences. Modernity, with its dislocating forces of revolution, industrialization, and globalization, has shattered these environments. What remains, Nora argues, is not lived memory but a self-conscious, archival, and prosthetic form of remembrance. In this void, societies consciously construct “sites of memory”—be they material (monuments, museums), symbolic (commemorations, flags), or functional (archives, manuals)—to anchor a collective identity that is no longer spontaneously sustained. These sites are deliberate bulwarks against collective amnesia, serving as intentional, often contested, anchors for a past that is in danger of being forgotten or distorted. This study adopts and expands Nora’s framework to analyze a distinct corpus: five Iranian films that take the Palestinian experience as their central subject. It argues that these cinematic works function as potent, contemporary “sites of memory,” consciously constructed to combat the dual threats of forgetting and the political-cultural distortion of Palestinian history. By strategically reconstructing memory within urban landscapes, rituals, and objects, these films do not merely document history but actively produce a narrative of resistance and identity preservation. Furthermore, this analysis incorporates nuanced concepts like “memory contact,” “memory knots,” and the “creolization of memory” to dissect the specific mechanisms through which this cinematic remembrance operates, acknowledging the transnational and hybrid nature of this memory work. While Nora’s theory provides the foundational architecture, this research employs several supplementary concepts to refine its application to cinema: a) Sites of Memory (Lieux de mémoire): the core concept. In this context, the films themselves become macro “sites,” while within their diegesis, specific elements (a key, a ruined house, a ritual) function as micro-sites. b) Memory Contact: This concept describes the points of interaction and negotiation between different memory traditions. Iranian cinema about Palestine is a prime example of “memory contact,” where an Iranian cinematic and political lens engages with the Palestinian national narrative. This is not a simple act of ventriloquism but a creative, often strategic, alignment of memories of resistance and displacement. c) Memory Knots: Drawing on the work of scholars like Michael Rothberg, this idea refers to dense constellations where multiple memory threads—personal and collective, traumatic and triumphant—intersect and become entangled. A single cinematic object, like a character’s heirloom, can act as a “knot” tying together the memory of the 1948 Nakba, personal loss, and the ongoing struggle. d) Creolization of Memory: This concept, akin to Astrid Erll’s notion of “travelling memory,” highlights how memories migrate, cross cultural borders, and blend with local narratives. The Palestinian story, as told through Iranian cinema, undergoes a process of “creolization.” It is inflected with the aesthetics, religious symbolism (particularly Shia iconography of martyrdom and injustice), and political discourse of the Iranian Revolution, creating a hybrid, transnational memory narrative that resonates with specific audiences. The analysis of the five films reveals a sophisticated deployment of various types of mnemonic sites as follows: Urban Landscapes as Palimpsests of Memory: The films frequently use the city—whether a refugee camp evocatively recreated on a set or a generic Middle Eastern urban space—as a palimpsest. In these spaces, the past is never truly erased. Scenes often depict characters navigating ruins, alleyways, and checkpoints that bear the physical and psychological marks of history. with history. These are not generic backdrops but active narrative agents. They spatialize memory, making the abstract trauma of displacement tangible. The cinematic city becomes a site where the lost homeland is continuously remembered and re-imagined, resisting its physical and historical erasure. Objects as Mnemonic Triggers and Testimonials: Objects carry an immense mnemonic weight. The most potent example is the key—a universal symbol of the Palestinian Right of Return, representing the keys to homes lost in 1948. When featured in a film, a key is not merely a prop; it is a condensed site of memory, embodying hope, loss, and intergenerational transmission. Similarly, old photographs, deeds to land, and traditional embroidery function as tangible evidence of a past that others seek to deny. These objects act as “memory knots,” where personal family history becomes inseparable from the national narrative. Rituals and Commemorations as Performative Memory: The films heavily utilize ritualistic spaces—mourning ceremonies, political rallies, and religious gatherings (like Ashura). These sequences function as performative sites of memory. Through chanting, eulogies, and collective grief, they re-enact and re-live the foundational traumas of the Palestinian struggle. This ritualization connects the Palestinian narrative to a deeper, archetypal narrative of martyrdom and resistance within Shia Islam, a clear example of “creolization.” This fusion strengthens the emotional and ideological resonance for the intended audience, transforming historical fact into sacred, repeatable memory. The Human Body as a Living Archive: The characters themselves become sites of memory. The aging refugee’s body, scarred by war, or the young fighter’s resolve, etched on his face, serves as a living testament to history. Their stories, told in flashbacks or monologues, are the embodied transmission of memory from one generation to the next, resisting the silence that oppression imposes. A crucial counterpoint in this study is Masoud Kimiai’s The Lead, which stands as a notable exception. Instead of constructing sites of memory, the film stages their deliberate and systematic erasure. It portrays a world where traces of the past are obscured, documents are destroyed, and witnesses are silenced. This creates a pervasive atmosphere of historical suspension and an identity unmoored from its foundational past. The protagonist’s struggle is not to preserve memory but to navigate a present devoid of coherent historical reference points. By depicting this memory vacuum, The Lead performs a vital function: it highlights the fragility of memory sites themselves and serves as a powerful cautionary tale. It underscores the high stakes of the mnemonic project and makes the constructive efforts of the other films appear even more urgent and necessary. Ultimately, this analysis demonstrates that Iranian films about Palestine are far more than political propaganda or simple acts of solidarity. They are sophisticated cultural artifacts that function as active “terrains of memory.” They exemplify how, in the absence of organic “milieux de mémoire,” cultural production becomes a vital, conscious technology for safeguarding and transmitting collective remembrance. By evoking the past through reconstructed sites, rebuilding a cohesive identity through symbolic elements, and symbolically resisting erasure through narrative, these films create a durable, transnational memory space. They reframe the Palestinian struggle through a specific Iranian lens, a process of “memory contact” and “creolization” that produces a hybrid yet powerful narrative of resistance. In doing so, Iranian cinema does not just tell a story about Palestine; it actively participates in the global struggle over memory, affirming that who controls the past often dictates the possibilities for the future.