There’s a lifetime of things to learn about events I was told to ignore.
I’ve read sections of Palestine by Joe Sacco before, but this is my first time reading the whole work (currently three chapters in). Twenty years, I thought as I read the introduction saying that Sacco’s journey took place in 1991-2, during the First Intifada – but as I type I realise that no, time drifted, that’s before I was born so it’s been over thirty years.
By comparison, my understanding of the War on Terror is reasonably good. I’m sure I’m missing plenty of pre-2001 context, and I’ll find connections to Palestine and Israel if I untangle the threads from the Cold War. But to understand Palestine means going back to 1948- no, to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire- or to Suleiman, or the Byzantines… How does my partner grapple with the enormity of history? This is a conflict you can arguably trace back to the Bronze Age. You can look for places to start and stop, but where you place the frame determines the shape of a story.
Sacco’s frame of reference is clear, at least. These are the people he spoke to at this time. The stories they told him are of their own lives. This is journalism, not history, and capturing the moment is more important than explaining why the moment is as it is. It would be ridiculous to say Sacco does not judge the two sides - his sympathies are clearly more with the Palestinians than the Israelis – but these judgements appear borne of his personal encounters, not prejudices that he brought with him.
I’ll write more on Sacco’s Palestine when I’ve read more of it, and hopefully I can get my hands on a copy of Footnotes in Gaza (2009) afterwards.
1/3 6/30