Outdated mindsets continue to hold Arabs back

Without genuine reform in the Arab world, critical thinking remains impaired. This means that the failed policies of the past continue to repeat themselves in a vicious cycle of stagnation.

Outdated mindsets continue to hold Arabs back

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Outdated mindsets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.

The near-total absence of critical thinking begets a far more comprehensive "setback" that Arab society will eventually have to contend with

A major flaw in understanding these failed policies is viewing them through a homogeneous lens. In reality, Arab societies and states differ, and this was manifested in their respective approaches to confront or not confront Israel.

For example, in Anwar Sadat's Egypt, Islamist groups were unleashed to suppress a rising leftist movement—a policy that ended in tragedy when he was later assassinated by the very forces he had empowered. In Syria, by contrast, all forms of opposition were brutally eliminated under the pretext of fighting the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the 1970s and 1980s.

Flawed policies

Ultimately, the Arab intellectual critique of the 1967 defeat failed to bring about any meaningful political or social change. Today, after a series of humiliating setbacks suffered by the so-called "axis of resistance" led by Iran, the ideological hollowness of such strategies has been laid bare.

When proponents of the 'axis' claim victory in Gaza or in Lebanon, it is laughable if it wasn't so tragic. At least, Arab regimes in 1967 had the good sense to admit their defeat by Israel. Gamal Abdel Nasser personally took responsibility for the failure and offered to resign in the aftermath of the war.

No such self-critique exists today, not only in the 'axis' but also in other factions involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict who supposedly champion Palestinian rights. The near-total absence of critical thinking and self-reflection begets a far more comprehensive "setback" that Arab society will eventually have to contend with.

font change