Sectarian violence - is it really Iraqi made?

While comments and analyses in Western mass media are dominated by the so-called Iraqi sectarian violence, Iraqis themselves are shocked about a phenomenon they swear they've never come across before the invasion.

Neurotic Iraqi wife describes how the sectarian issue even turns the formerly Happy Eid into an unhappy one (bold markings by me):

The office was virtually empty today except for a few people, because of the Eid vacation. I saw a colleague of mine and said to her "Happy Eid" She immediately looked disdainfully at me and said "My Eid is tomorrow, Im still fasting" Hmm, I said, well, Happy Eid in advance then. After a few minutes I bumped into one of the Iraqi maintenance guys. I smiled happily and said "Happy Eid to you" Its not OUR eid today its the "Wahabbis" (a very disrespectful way of calling Sunni's that, I mean I dunno why, we cant be civil to one another) Eid, he spat out. Ours is tomorrow. OMG, I thought to myself. Maybe its better I dont even mention happy or eid to anyone. So I became really cautious. Whenever I saw someone instead of telling them Happy Eid, I would just ask "Are you celebrating Eid TODAY or TOMORROW?" If the answer is today I will tell them Have a happy one, if answer is tomorrow, I will say oh ok, then Happy eid in advance.

I mean it became such a sensitive issue that I dont even feel like saying it to anyone, incase I offend anybody. Talk about people being real uptight. Its ridiculus really. We are living in the same country, looking at the same sky, breathing the same air, yet we see the moon differently. How is that possible, I have no idea. Why cant we for once, just once unite on one thing. We never had such anonimosity towards each other like now. Never. Most of my family are intermarried, and I know many many more of the same. But now I hear stories of men divorcing their wives after 20 or 30 years of marriage because of the difference in Sects. And usually its not the man or the woman's wish, it is forced upon them by family or tribe. Wowwww... Instead of becoming an advanced country, we have become one that was worse than the Jahiliya era. The pre-Islamic Arabian age of ignorance, marked by barbarism and unbelief.

Mixmax offers plausible reasons why the current sectarian violence can't derive from Iraqi's past:

There are some who comes up with an opinion that the Shiites in Iraq were oppressed by Saddam for years, and this one of the reason for the violence which has been witnessed in day to day life in Iraq.. I don’t agree with that opinion because:
First, it became clear to many – even the media is increasingly showing this through their reports and news bulletins – that violence is caused by two groups of people: one group is looking for political gains and misusing the name of a certain religious group for this purpose. The second group consists of thieves, killers, and some other losers who are looking for financial gains. It also might be some kind of a political maneuver, but Muqtada Al Sadr did himself send a letter to his militia in Amara demanding them to stop, “otherwise, Al Sadr will disown you all”. This did not put a halt to the bloodshed in the begining!

On the other hand, Last wednesday, a couple of days ago all media channels showed a pro-Qaida group in Ramadi staging a defiant parade-like show off in the western city of Ramadi. They were driving their cars and on motorcycles freely and in the middle of the day carrying their rifles with their black and white masks and slogans.

Some media sources named this show of force as "Sunni fighters take over Ramadi". It made me wonder, though, if the whole clashes affair in Amara by the Shiite Al Mahdi millitia is just a reply message from Al Sadr to the Sunni group in Ramadi, and not only about a local leader who has been kidnapped!!

Second, Saddam did not only oppress Shiites. Saddam is not considered as Sunni as some think, and that he is loyal to Sunni Islam! In fact, Saddam did not give a damn to whether that person is Sunni or Shiite or even believe in devil: the essential thing is to eliminate anyone who might dream of opposing anything related to the regime. Saddam created his own “sect”, his own “social” group. Yes, a mutant social group within the Iraqi community. Back to Saddam’s created social group: This group became the effective tool that helped in planting successfully two things: fear from the regime, and distrust among citizens. This included people from all sectors, and from different religions.

Iraqi Konfused Kid pictures in his talented language how religion is being politically abused:

al-Qaeda is worthless without their straetgic allies the Baathists, who adopted a more Islamic veil to fit in with the times and bring us all to this sectarain lollapalooza.

Change of scene: when Lebanon was attacked, the Foreign ministers of 18 Arab countries held an emergency meeting in Cairo that turned out to be somewhat different from the usual 'let's go to the UN and condemn Israel'- party. Instead "a heated closed-door session" about dreams and Arab unitiy took place. I'll mark one party in green, the other in pink:

(...)ministers traded barbs over whether Lebanese group Hezbollah bore any responsibility for the escalation in violence that followed its capture of two Israeli soldiers.(...)

Arab diplomats who attended the closed session said Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal, whose country has been critical of Hezbollah, accused Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Moualem of "devilish dreams."

"Arab unity is the most important stance that should be taken, and unfortunately I feel I am not hearing those words from Prince Saud Al-Faisal," Moualem was reported to have said.
"How can we come here to discuss the burning situation in Lebanon while others are making statements criticizing the resistance?" asked Moualem.

Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammad Al-Salem Al-Sabah responded, saying that Moualem's dreams were "rosy" but echoed Saudi Arabia's rare criticism of Hezbollah, the diplomats said.

Earlier, Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh presented his fellow Arab League members with a draft resolution condemning Israel's military offensive and supporting Lebanon's "right to resist occupation by all legitimate means," language frequently used by Hezbollah to justify its militants' presence in south Lebanon.

Salloukh, a Shiite close to the mainstream Amal faction as well as the militant Hezbollah, said Arab governments were not doing enough to protest Israel's assault on Lebanon.

"What our Arab brothers have called `involvement' has only resulted in frustration and bitterness among Arab people," Salloukh told participants at the meeting Saturday.

"If [Arab] governments are not serious and determined ... our people will sooner or later take things into their own hands," he said.

Here is a more detailed version of the Saudi Prince's statement:

The prince said, “A large part of our efforts in the past has been spent in holding emergency meetings without making necessary preparations to face the challenges...decisions made during crises carry the stamp of hurry and emotion which mostly result in aggravating the crisis instead of providing a solution to it.”

The prince also pointed out that an objective analysis of the Arab situation over the past five decades shows that “impromptu and emotionally charged decisions without a deep understanding of the consequences” have led to “tragedy after tragedy including loss of land, occupation and civil wars.” Saud said, “Unless we agree that the time has come to get out of this ominous and vicious circle of making decisions that are taken under the shadow of crisis which only helps create fresh crises and aggravation, nothing will be achieved. The time has come to speak about matters openly even if they are painful.”

The prince also said that the Arab League was not a club to exchange empty clichés but a body to make military, political and economic treaties, adding that the league condemned the practice of a single party enforcing dictatorial decisions and not allowing other members to express their opinions.

“If the unilateral decision by a single country is unacceptable then what about an undisciplined and irresponsible single element inside a country taking decisions which not only involves that country alone but pushes the remaining countries as well into a blind adventure? It is totally unacceptable and this matter should be unambiguously clear to all,” he said.

He continued, “My government views that it is essential to open a new page in our joint action in a new style with a new spirit as we cannot continue by repeating the same mistake of burdening our patient people with the consequences of mistakes.”

He exhorted members to reach a wise decision instead of adding a new problem to the current crisis.

“We need to make rapid moves to put an end to the Israeli aggression in Lebanon and Palestine and make a call for the language of dialogue to prevail and an end to the violence,” he said.

Why are these two topics related? I'll make a break for now, some more research to do.

** update: I've translated the first part (Iraqi bloggers' statements into German and published it in my German blog.