Arab Perspective: Losing their national identities to invasion

Three years ago, when the US sent its troops to invade Iraq, "there was no danger of a civil war breaking, no Al Qaida presence, no weapons of mass destruction and in fact, a display of cooperation with inspectors from the United Nations". These are the introductory words of Abdul Bari Atwan of Al Quds Al Arabi (London) who titles his article Goodbye Old Iraq.

Atwan says three years of occupation did not bring Iraq anything but a group of thieves who spread corruption and destroyed the country's heritage. The occupation "ruined Iraq's reputation, broke the bonds previously found amongst its sons and inflamed sectarian tension (tearing to pieces the Iraqi national identity)", writes Atwan.

"For the first time in 7,000 years, there is no longer an 'Iraqi' person. Now it is an Iraqi Sunni, Kurdish, Arab, Turkumani, Ashoori, Kildani, Saebi etc ? This is the 'New Iraq'", says Atwan. "To the point where for the first time in history, people threaten to kill people over Sunni-Shiite intermarriages and call for divorces amongst existing marriages."

Atif Abdul Jawad from Al Watan newspaper (Oman) asks, "Three years after the US-led invasion of Iraq, Americans are wondering, what did they benefit from this war? This is done as they view this war 'like a fast forwarded video tape'."

Jawad says some Americans who supported the war argue that the most important benefit they gained as a result of the three-year-war is that the US hasn't been attacked by terrorists since 9/11. This is open to predictions but some have put forward the argument that Al Qaida has been kept busy in Iraq. However, the same war that prevented the death of 3,000 people in America resulted in the killing of more than 2,300 Americans in Iraq.

Jawad concludes, "One cannot help but wonder, what would it be like if Bush had not launched this war against Iraq and instead concentrated on his war against Afghanistan?"

Dr Abdul Illah Belqaziz from

Al Khaleej newspaper (UAE) writes, "The third anniversary comes at a time when tensions are high and oppositions are enabling the occupation to continue."

The writer recalls that "1,100 days separate us" between March of 2003 and now.

"Any observer can see the big gap between the imperial goals and the ludicrous results that we see in Iraq."

He emphasises, "While the results of this war have been negative (as far as the US's political investments are concerned) they have been catastrophic for Iraq in every measurable way."

Belqaziz questions, "Is it acceptable that Iraq gets occupied, has its human geographical definitions broken, its security wiped out and its national order destroyed?"

Palestinian politics

Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram says the main problem with the new government forming (with Hamas dominating it) is that it will simply continue "running Palestinian matters".

Moreover, this government will face grave problems when it comes to dealing with the rights and limits associated with negotiations and Western countries in general. This is an essential matter for Palestinians who rely extensively on foreign assistance.

Hamas's negotiations with other Palestinian parties failed because of the insistence of these groups to hold on to their agendas and due to their refusal to compromise.

The editorial says without a joint Palestinian agenda and without a government comprising all the various groups in Palestine (especially Fatah), the needs of the Palestinian people will not be met.

Nawaf Abu Al Haija from Jordanian newspaper Addustour says in a stable democratic country, forming governments happens according to legitimate election results. "And despite differences amongst the various running parties, an agreement is usually reached which reflects the best interests of that given country."

But in our countries, says Al Haija, things seem to happen very differently.

Take the Palestinian example. "Fatah has been a political and social symbol as well as a champion of struggle in Palestine for many decades ? other resistance movements and groups never clashed with Fatah; instead they worked to strengthen their collective cause the two intifadas produced greater unity amongst the various groups within Palestine."

The writer hopes that the current Fatah position of not participating in Hamas's government is not a move to suppress the Palestinian democratic experience.

Moreover, he records the stance taken by Fatah as a negative one because it has placed Hamas in a very difficult position. He contends, "It's like casting out to a stormy sea in a leaky boat."