richard millet, just another racist zionist

I am not certain I like how this programme was prepared on Press TV. First, who are the "audience in Ram-a-llaaaah?" We are not told who are these young men, who they represent, are they activists, students, both, or none? And why are there no women in the "audience"? And I did not like the fact that the members of "the audience" who spoke remained nameless. And look at this ignorant guest that was hosted, Richard Millet, who believes that the houses that the Israelis are building, part of the settlements, can later be accomodated by Palestinians! Oh, yeah. The Israelis kill Palestinians and then build them houses to live in. How nice. But, really now, Israelis even bomb the Palestinian tombs. He was literally a laughing stock: "building homes isn't necessarily religious, Jewish or Muslim or Arab or Palestinian. Building houses is necessary so people can-ummm oooo ummm- live in them" Mr Millet seems to be living with the Na'vi in Pandora. I couldn't stop laughing at this sentence, but you can see comrade Haidar flipping in his chair. "I don't see why when we sit on the negotiating tables-not we, the Palestinians and Israelis- that the inhabitants of these houses can be moved and Palestinians can live in them"- wow. I mean how easy is that, not that I am defending the settlers! But, look at how casually he can say it, as if people are some kind of sheep flock that you can simply move around. And does he honestly believe that settlers would just step aside for the Palestinians to live in the houses? That is racist. That is why in the one democratic state solution, we ask to keep the Israeli settlements and move in Palestinians (and that is even a concession! The settlers do NOT belong there, it is not there land). Why should it only be one ethnic or religious identity gets to occuppy a space? Why should a space be purified into one ehthnic, religious, gender, or racial identity? This is the cornerstone of colonial, superior thought. There are many studies about the Judization of Jerusalem, such as Eyal Weizman's Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Domination and there is also a book called The Politics of Sacred Spaces by Michael Dumper and both speak about how spaces are used in a wider political and economic context. But, I am opposed to how Dumper constantly speaks about two "nations" in Jerusalem. Again, Judaism is not a nationalism, Israel makes it one. Israel, through architecture, is changing modern day Jerusalem and Judizing it: when it destroyed the Maghareb quarter of the old city, or the appropriation of the churches through confiscation, lease and purchase. Even when we listened to Netanyahu speaking at the beginning of the programme that the "Jews were building Jerusalem 3000 years ago and now building it again." That is racist, exclusive, and ethnocentric. I am an atheist, but look at how god is used as a real estate agent. This discourse of using God to "our" side, is not so different from the Talibani or the Bin Ladenite discourse. I think the presenter, or the preparation team didn't do a good job researching this, but comrade Haidar handled it well. And look at how Millet keeps on referring to Hamas in each and every sentence he fabricates. At the end of the programme one of the young men looking fed up with the constant reference to Hamas asked him "what about before Hamas, what about 1967, the 70s the 80s?" I liked it when one of young men told Millet to go read Edward Said's work. Just when a Zionist runs out of crappy arguments, s/he starts to beg for attention by referring to Hamas, and the "subjugation of women" and look at these poor Palestinians suffering under those extremists and so on. It's getting so lame. And one more thing, homosexuals are harrassed in the Arab/Israeli world? If there is one safe haven for same sex desire to happen, it is in the Arab or Islamic world and I don't need to explain why!