Re: Wallerstein on end of peace process

Both Said and Burchill are more to the point than Wallerstein.  Said and
Burchill both emphasize the underlying structural problem that the
Palestinians, even with a successful "Oslo peace process," end up negotiating
away a sovereign nation, while Israel legitimates what it won through
force in 1948 and 1967.

It's not just a matter of "a hill," as Wallerstein ludicrously puts it.
And there is no "war" going on right now in Palestine/Israel.  There are
riots, there is heavily militarized police action, there are people
(Palestinians, mainly) being killed.  But a "war" requires two armies, and
in this case there is only one.

The ominous tone has a sort of implicit threat too, it seems.  "Compromise
with Israel or things will go nuclear and become a world war."  While this
may be a worst case scenario, it is scarcely inevitable.

But according to Wallerstein "the main issue is the legitimacy of Israel," 
so I guess the rest follows.  This is not Wallerstein at his best.

RH