There are generally two schools of Arab thought surrounding the 1967 defeat of the Egyptian and Syrian armies by Israel, which became known as the Naksa or setback. The first blamed the defeat on the backwardness of Arab societies, constrained by conservative cultures and authoritarian regimes. They argue that the power structures in Cairo and Damascus hindered development and progress.
This camp saw the Arab world facing a civilisational crisis and pondered existential questions, reviving theological debates from the early Islamic eras, such as the rationalism advocated by the Mu'tazila school of thought and the philosophical musings of Ibn Rushd.
The second camp blamed the defeat on external forces. According to this view, the collusion between the West and Israel to tighten their grip on Arab resources and ensure the region’s subjugation gave Israel the military advantage.
Some went as far as to accuse leading figures of the so-called Nahda (Arab Renaissance), such as Qasim Amin and Imam Muhammad Abduh, of being colonial agents, manipulated by the British to infiltrate and weaken Arab societies, thereby laying the groundwork for future defeats. Other thinkers within this tradition rejected Western modernity altogether, particularly the model of the nation-state, as incompatible with the Arab East.
Outdated mindsets
Since 1967, there has been no meaningful reform in Arab societies; consequently, these two schools of thought, which attempt to explain the current state of stagnation, have also remained unchanged. So it hardly comes as a surprise that post-1967 strategies of confronting Israel—which included armed guerrilla resistance and alliances with the Soviet Union and then later Iran—have miserably failed.
