Why defeat denial is holding back the Arab world

Using the trivial to mask the profound

At first glance, the matter can seem trivial and one that could have been easily dismissed. But taking a step back and a longer look at it reveals deeper and more meaningful insight into how the Arab world can seek distractions from the bigger issues it faces.

Is it appropriate to judge Gamal Abdel Nasser's era solely based on his alleged alcohol consumption? The focus should be on the significant impact of the 1967 defeat — a loss that continues to affect the Arab world. The Palestinians still endure the aftermath of this historical setback.  

This period was also marked by the imprisonment of opposition figures across a broad ideological spectrum, including communists and Islamists. It was a time of overwhelming electoral support for the president and an era where repression and dictatorship were portrayed as stability.

Abdel Nasser's actions in the name of Arab nationalism, which involved conflicts with other Arab nations, are also noteworthy. Therefore, questioning whether Abdel Nasser drank alcohol seems trivial in the grand scheme of things and unlikely to substantially affect our understanding of his era or amount to valid grounds for condemning it.

Analyse, don't apologise

Dr. El-Feki's apology was wrong. It was also wrong to accept the claim that what he revealed makes him a party in the dispute.

The real issue goes beyond personal habits.

A larger question arises: when did personal freedoms within one's home become subject to public scrutiny? How can societies that claim to champion political freedom simultaneously condemn and sometimes overlook violations of individual freedoms and personal choices?

Furthermore, have we thoroughly investigated the causes of the 1967 setback and held those responsible accountable? Have we sufficiently explored its root causes and its ramifications? The answer, regrettably, is no.

Over the last 75 years, we have persistently shied away from directly acknowledging our defeats. We've spun in various ways yet have consistently avoided the explicit use of "defeat." Sometimes, we refer to setbacks (Naksa) or trials, sidestepping the harsh reality of defeat.

This tendency mirrors how people in the Levant refer to cancer as "that disease," demonstrating a reluctance to face the truth directly. Despite significant losses, including territories like the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai, not to mention a loss of our humanity, we continue to minimise these events, labelling them simply as setbacks.

How did we reach this point? What drove our society from discussing ideas to scrutinising individuals? Is this a recent shift, or has it always been part of our nature? If Dr. El-Feki owes an apology for anything, it should be for apologising at all.

Indeed, numerous intellectuals and leaders owe an apology, not for their words, but for their silence and failure to courageously tackle the underlying reasons behind our present circumstances.

Their fear of public opinion – leading them to engage in populist rhetoric and overblown discourse –  creates a pattern of ongoing defeat. As this trend persists, it becomes increasingly challenging to coin new terms to disguise it.

Numerous intellectuals and leaders owe an apology, not for their words but for their silence and failure to courageously tackle the underlying reasons for our present circumstances.