Mission Accomplished

Article 1 of the draft of the Iraqi Bill of Rights states:

3. Any individual with another nationality (except for Israel) may obtain Iraqi nationality after a period of residency inside the borders of Iraq of not less than ten years for an Arab or twenty years for any other nationality, as long as he has good character and behavior, and has no criminal judgment against him from the Iraqi authorities during the time of his residency on the territory of the Iraqi republic.

4. An Iraqi may have more than one nationality as long as the nationality is not Israeli.

Good job, Neocons. Mission Accomplished.

[via No Treason via LRC]

Share this

hey, at least they don't

hey, at least they don't have a provision calling for the extermination of Israel. and at least they refer to "israel" as opposed to "the zionist entity" or somesuch dysphemism. look for the silver lining! (/smirk)

While hardly ideal, this is

While hardly ideal, this is of course the way things go. Israel has a heavily prejudiced property law which...restricts any land in Jewish possesion from being resold (or sold as the case may be) to an Arab.

This is the first I've heard of this, but some quick Googling suggests that that statement lies (no pun intended) somewhere between gross oversimplification and outright falsehood.

This was a translation from

This was a translation from Arabic of an article in an Iraqi newspaper, supposedly "composed by one of the subcommittees of the drafting committee of the Iraqi Constitution." A lot of bridges need to be crossed to show it has any firm place in Iraq's future.

Even if it does, I'm not sure how you can blame "neocons" for it. Were there any neocons involved in creating it? Not as far as I can tell. The provisions reflect the bias of the drafters and more generally the culture that promotes those biases. It's asking too much to expect anything remotely like the US Constitution/Bill of Rights. And compared with the proposal for the EU Constitution, a lot of it seems rather tame.

Neocons can be blamed for the general goal of supporting nation-building in places that lack the cultural institutions to support a liberal democracy. But the xenophobia in the provisions falls squarely on the people who wrote the draft, not "neocons".

That would be fine, if they

That would be fine, if they could keep the Saudis from buying the entire country.

While hardly ideal, this is

While hardly ideal, this is of course the way things go. Israel has a heavily prejudiced property law which does much more damage than this would likely do (how many Israeli-Iraqi citizens do we foresee?), as it restricts any land in Jewish possesion from being resold (or sold as the case may be) to an Arab. It's been in place for over 50 years, and it should certainly go as well.
-Matt

Matt, See my recent post,

Matt,

See my recent post, "Don’t Confuse Collective Ownership With State Ownership."

Money shot:

In a landmark decision, Israel’s attorney general ruled last week that one of the fundamental tenets upon which the Jewish state was built — acquiring and reserving land for Jews to live on — is discriminatory and should not continue with state assistance.

Attorney General Menachem Mazuz was responding to a Supreme Court case involving Jewish National Fund, an organization that helped build the Jewish state by purchasing land for Jewish settlement — largely with funds donated by Jews in America. Land owned by the fund is designated as public land and leased by the government to homeowners. In his January 26 ruling, Mazuz said that the government may no longer market the land if the fund allows only Jewish tenants.

Brandon, it's a series of

Brandon, it's a series of laws that have been enacted and while I don't have my books with me (as i'm on an obscure island in nicoragua) I can only assume that your attempting to use the common "but israelis can't own land either" defense, since it's often claimed (as a defense to charges like those i made above) that only the israeli government can own the land and that all such land is leased "to anyone." Notwithstanding the speciousness of those claims, it's not much of a defense anyway given that it's probably be preferable to have the land in the hands of private israeli citizens than in the hands of the government (as far as palistinians are concerned) given the more charitable attitude of the israeli populace compared with that of it's government. In case this isn't your argument, I might ask you to spell it out more clearly as I'm almost having to construct the argument myself at this point.

Matt

Actually, this may be

Actually, this may be something intended for another tack -- it may be intended to encompass the (so-called) Palastinians, to keep them from swarming into Iraq and bringing thier death cult when it turns out that the "right of return" is never going to happen.