Below is a particularly telling excerpt. Read the full document here, with thanks to John Derbyshire.
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.
So the Iraqis don't even want Israeli Arabs or Muslims either, since there won't be a flood of
Israeli jews heading to Iraq I think this will keep out the terrorist sect of palestinians
that want the "Right of return" to israel and
eventually wipe out all Jews and claim the land for islam.
Wow,talk about rejection,Islamist may finally take over Israel but then have to live with that fact that not even Iraqis want them in their Country.
So you want Iraq to welcome israeli nationals?
No surprises in the lands worshipping allah.
So you want Iraq to welcome israeli nationals?
There are Arabs in Israel too. Are they worth less because of where they were born? It sucks that in 2005 a country is putting racial discrimination into its constitution. Ten years residency for an Arab and 20 for the rest? Imagine if the US passed a law saying that all non-whites had to wait twice as long for US citizenship. It's sickening, and shows how far the Iraqi people have to travel on the road to democracy. But I'm not a pessimist. Within living memory, the USA also had racist laws on its books. They are gone now, and I hope I live to see Iraqis consign this bigotry to history.
Did anyone notice they have a section that says it is illegal to give citizenships that will change the current demographic structure of Iraq?
Someone better tell Ted Kennedy so he can straighten them out......
Arabs in Israel are like native Americans in the US. An expat Palestinian cant visit his own village in Israel.
"Within living memory, the USA also had racist laws on its books. They are gone now, and I hope I live to see Iraqis consign this bigotry to history."
Glad to know there are others that see the cup as "half full."
Other than the clause about Israel, this is an extraordinarily liberal bill of rights (by Arab standards). It is a far cry from the "Sharia law" that was being predicted two days ago.
YouAreWrong,
You are wrong. Native Americans can go anywhere, anyplace, anytime in the US. They also have rights and privilages that far out-weigh those of average citizens sometimes. Obviously you haven't been to an Indian casino lately. We love our Native Americans - and no - they are NOTHING like the Palestinians.
Laurel you got me wrong,
I meant that Arabs in Israel have the right to stay in israel like native americans have the right to stay in the US as citizens.
They are similar in this respect and no suggestions are being made that they look like eachother in any other aspect.
I might be wrong
Arabs in Israel are like native Americans in the US. An expat Palestinian cant visit his own village in Israel.
And this justifies discrimination against them? If Israeli Arabs are oppressed, shouldn't Iraq welcome them instead of shunning them? I thought Muslims take pride in looking after each other, and get so upset when Muslims are mistreated that a few feel the need to blow up the London Underground. What can justify the Iraqi discrimination against their Muslim brothers in Israel? Strategy, that's what I think. It's the same nonsense that leads other Arab countries to discriminate against both Israelis and Palestinians alike. Palestinians have to be kept isolated and out of work, because if they could get decent jobs and live as equals in Arab countries, they might start to enjoy life, and then they might stop killing Jews. And too many people in the Arab world don't want to see that happen.
Latest News:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050722/ap_on_re_eu/britain_underground_2;_ylt=Aohr0ZuLqIly3ZMreTtHgky9Q5gv;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050722/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/grenada_britain_bombing_1;_ylt=AvZRboscfpTwYBLWZrsW3B.9Q5gv;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Rublev says it right.
Besides a constitutional guarantee to safeguard demographic composition...wow. Why didn't liberal democracies think of this brilliant piece of artwork before *slaps his forehead*....
Moslems everywhere have excessively high birthrates and a demographic threat to every genuine (i.e. non discriminatory and non-muslim) democracy out there. I can't imagine invoking such a guarantee by a liberal democracy by, say Britain against its mussis or by the US against, say, the Hispanics.
viking
No justifications. It is just hard for the iraqi government to welcome israelis given the current condition of the palestinian-israeli conflict.
Actually there is another facotr that might be behind these lines in the document: There are many Jewish Iraqis that want to come back to iraq, and that may add fuel(a new execuse for zarqawi) to current fire in Iraq.
Reading the entire constitution, I see that the "except Israel" part and preferential treatment for Arabs does not feature in the latest draft. That's good to see. The people of Iraq deserve some peace after so many years of oppression. A non-sectarian constitution that does not include racial preference is a way forward.
Actually there is another facotr that might be behind these lines in the document: There are many Jewish Iraqis that want to come back to iraq, and that may add fuel(a new execuse for zarqawi) to current fire in Iraq.
The number of Iraqi Jews is one or two hundred thousand, and Iraq is a country of 20 million. I wonder if it's really necessary to write discrimination into the constitution. I hope it is not, but you're right to point out that the Iraqis have a difficult balancing act to perform. I guess I was too quick to judge. It's still sad to see, though.
That's why was against the Iraq war in the first place. They don't like democracy and they don't want democracy (well, maybe they do but only until they can implement sharia law). Why Messrs Bush and Blair would send our young people down there to "liberate" a bunch of morons who aren't worth a drop of infidel blood is beyond me. Of course we should have kept a close eye on Iraq but a ground invasion... no, never. Why stop muslims from killing muslims?
Am I a bit cynical to imagine that Iraqis, in their heart, would have liked to have those documents read “Israel and America?” Oh, I’m aware that they are polite to us now but is it real or are we being used?
We give Egypt $2 billion a year and the state-controlled press spews anti-American hatred on a daily basis. We helped Afghanistan fight the USSR and they helped the terrorists plan the 9/11 attack. I could go on but let me ask once again: will they be our enemy once they get back on their feet? Or am I just imagining this after a long tiring day at work? Your comments?
Iraqis are still Muslims. What did you expect? Read the Bible. It prophesies the rebirth of the Babylonian empire, which at its height, included what is now Iraq and Iran. They will reunite into one super Islamic state. But it also says that the new Babylon will be destroyed and burn forever. Cheers!
"It is just hard for the iraqi government to welcome israelis given the current condition of the palestinian-israeli conflict".
The Iraqi government will never "welcome", Irael, no matter what. Hateing Joo's goes deeper than politics and the PA Israel situation.
The history of hateing joo's goes back to Mohammad and his revelations from Allah. Allah says a true believer renounces agreements with joo's. Allah hates unbelievers (especially joos) with a blinding fury. He has all kinds of terrible punishments when he gets us in the fire.
No muslim controlled country is going to 'welcome' joos...They wouldn't dare. Allah might send Iblis to whoop on them...Allah knows best...
Article 5, No.4: "The state shall ensure harmony between the duties of women toward her family and her work in the society and equality with men...without conflicting with or disturbing the provisions of the Islamic sharia."
Yep, it looks like it will be sharia time for women in Iraq. It's the equality for women you have when you don't have equality for women.
Article 22: "In addition to the rights stipulated in this constitution Iraqi citizens enjoy the rights stipulated in international treaties, agreements, and international legal documents that Iraq has signed or joined or that are considered binding according to the provisions of internal law, so long as these do not contradict the provisions of the Islamic sharia."
Looks like it is sharia time for everyone. You can have any human rights you want as long as it is allowed for in the sharia, sharia or sharia. Choices, so many choices. Hmmm...I think I will have freedom to apostatize...oops conflicts with sharia. The religious police are knocking down my door now. That is what I call progress. As in the difference between 650 AD and 651 AD.
But who would actually want to emigrate to Iraq?
I've since removed the "Mesopotamia or Bust" banner from the front of our car.
Bohemond:
"Read the Bible. It prophesies the rebirth of the Babylonian empire, which at its height, included what is now Iraq and Iran. They will reunite into one super Islamic state."
Never!
First the Shiia will kill the Sunni, together they will kill the Christians. then they'll try to kill the Jews and that's where it ends.
disillusioned german:
Couldn't agree more: Iraq is not worth one drop of infidel blood! Even though I think the ground invasion was justified just in order to get rid of Saddam they should be out by now and the bugger executed. The rest is up to them. Basta!
Article 22, quoted by obl r us, is very interesting indeed. "... IRAQI CITIZENS ENJOY THE RIGHTS STIPULATED IN INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, agreements, and international legal documents THAT IRAQ HAS SIGNED or joined or that are considered binding according to the provisions of internal law, SO LONG AS THESE DO NOT CONTRADICT the provisions of THE ISLAMIC SHARIA."
In other words: we don't give a sh.t for having signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights, it is NOT binding for us: Sharia overrules it whenever it contradicts it.
So, forget about:
Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Allah doesn't think so, in Sharia women are not equal to men, non-Muslims to Muslims.
Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Allah doesn't think so: women are not equal to men, non-Muslims to Muslims, and the Jooos are least equal of all.
Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Except when he/she is an apostate, a blasphemist or adulterist.
Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
But who said stoning people to death is cruel, inhuman or degrading?
Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
Except for women, non-Muslims and those jooos, of course.
Article 10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal...
But a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's, and a non-Muslim's testimony may be worth nothing.
Article 13: (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence...
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own...
Except for women, who need a male guardian's licence or escort to be allowed to travel.
Article 16: (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
Allah doesn't think women should have equal rights regarding their marriage, so forget about it.
Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Only as long as he/she is a Muslim and does not apostize.
Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
As long as these ideas do not criticize, contradict or otherwise threaten Islam.
So, Iraq, a signatory of UDHR, turns it into a pathetic joke by arrogantly announcing that their signature doesn't bind them to respecting any of the most important and basic human rights, because these happen to contradict the Sharia. Would it not be more honest to openly leave and disclaim those international agreements than to ridicule them by subordinating them to the laws of a medieval cult?
youarewrong:
You are ignorant.
Jews lived in Iraq for 2500 years, up until Saddam's time, enduring a great deal of harassment and worse for the last century up to the 1970s, when virtually all of them left.
In the 1920s, about a quarter of Bagdad's population was Jewish and formed the backbone of its middle class -- teachers, professionals, merchants, etc.
As for Arabs in Israel, they are under no threat of being expelled and a very large proportion of the claimants to Palestinian nationality were very recent arrivals to the area, coming, primarily in the 1920s and 30s to take advantage of the economic boom resulting from Jewish development of the land.
On the other hand, about half of Israel's Jewish population are not of eastern European descent, but are Sephardic, Yemenite, Persian, etc., and even, more recently, Ethiopia, and fled their homes to safety from extreme persecution and massacres. The Minister of Defense, Shaul Maufaz, is Iraqi and the President, Dov Katsov, is Iranian. Katsov was at a conference not long ago and bumped into then Iranian PM Khatami and spoke to him for nearly an hour in their native Farsi dialect. An embarassed Khatami then fervently denied what had happened.
I don't know how old you are, Youarewrong, but I suspect you are fairly young. So keep this in mind: you don't know what you don't know, so be very careful when you go shooting your mouth off.
One thing I do note, however, about this story, is that they bar Israelis, but not Jews. I'd guess most of Iraq's Jews immigrated to Israel, but there are a fair number of very well-heeled Iraqi Jews in the US, some of whom even voted in the January 30 elections, which, of course, upset the Islamists to no end.
" but who would want to actually immigrate to Iraq? "
An Iraqi with a malfunctioning GPS unit?
That's just wonderfull. Can we leave Iraq now?
If this is the kind of crap that's going to go into their new constitution, I say we leave and let god sort it out.
Iraq's Constitution will reflect the will of the dominant, deeply Muslim Shi'a -- the Shi'a like Jaafari and Sistani, not like the secular Allawi and Chalabi. It is the Sunnis who, paradoxically, though it is mainly they who are killing Americans, would prefer less emphasis on Islam. Every important element in this proposed constitution has the overall modifier: as long as this does not contradict the letter, or spirit, of the Shari'a. That is all ye know on earth -- and all ye need to know.
It will be done in the spirit of Islam. The women's clothes will get longer and blacker, the sellers of alcohol will be shot dead in Basra and in Baghdad, Islam -- and only Islam -- will be the goal of this new, rebuilt-by-Americans, funded-by-Americans, held-together-by-Americans, trained-and-equipped-by-Americans, Iraq.
If the Americans do not get out very soon, the failure to take advantage of what Iraq offers something like a grand strategy for constraining, dividing, demoralizing, pushing back the forces of Islam, only because those in positions of making policy cannot stand back, cannot separate themselves from the particular day's or month's or year's events, to consider the much larger menace, beginning with the islamization, through demographic conquest, of much of the Western world (which also implies, of course, taking possession at some point of that Western world's military and financial and other resources), if they cannot see how Iraq can now be used, not by doing something, but by doing essentially nothing and letting the natural fissures of Islam work their magic -- then it is worse than a crime. It is a mistake.
A Big Mistake.