On Tuesday, 24 June 2025, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) held its monthly Ibn Rushd Salon, The 1967 Defeat and the Ongoing Structural Crises in Arab Regimes, which featured Dr. Khaled Fahmy, Edward Keller Professor of Middle Eastern and North African History at Tufts University, and Dr. Mohsen Saleh, Professor of Palestinian Studies and Director General of the Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations. The discussion was moderated by Tunisian human rights advocate, Messaoud Romdhani.
The speakers began by posing the central question of whether the root causes of the defeat in 1967 remain present today—reverberating not only within the Egyptian political system, but across Arab states more broadly.
Dr. Khaled Fahmy outlined several causes of the 1967 defeat—some rooted in the historical moment itself, and others that remain deeply relevant today. The defeat cannot solely be attributed to the regime of President Gamal Abdel Nasser, Fahmy contended, it was moreover an outcome of structural crises within the Egyptian state, many of which persist to this day. He highlighted the serious consequences of the Egyptian army’s involvement at the time in non-military affairs. Among other responsibilities, the army was managing the Customs Authority, the Public Transport Authority, and the majority of public-sector companies. The military leadership’s focus was thus diverted toward tasks outside their mandate. Internal divisions and conflicts emerged within the army’s ranks and leadership, which in turn undermined Nasser’s command over it; this disconnect left Nasser unaware of the army’s actual state of readiness for battle.
Dr. Fahmy also addressed the crisis stemming from the absence of institutions, noting that even after the Naksa (the 1967 defeat), all efforts at reconstruction and reform remained centered around the figure of the president—his charisma—rather than institutional frameworks. Governance continued to rely primarily on loyalists rather than qualified experts, with no space for dissent, criticism, or debate, under the prevailing slogan: ‘No voice rises above the voice of battle.’
He continued: ‘The very notion of an institutional state is fundamentally at odds with the idea of a singular leader and one-man rule. The erosion, weakening, and hollowing out of institutions is a key pillar of authoritarian governance.’ In doing so, the ruler ensures the absence of any meaningful oversight or accountability. Perhaps the clearest example of this, Fahmy noted, was the decision by the National Assembly, shortly before the Naksa, to grant the president full authority to take whatever decisions he saw fit. Its members even marched to his home to deliver the resolution—an act that represented a voluntary abdication of the Assembly’s role at such a critical juncture.
Dr. Mohsen Saleh also highlighted the role of media misinformation in shaping the defeat. From the Naksa to the present day, he noted, media manipulation has become a consistent trend across the region. Systematic misinformation has effectively sidelined the public from the core of the conflict, creating a disconnect in public consciousness. The media has cultivated inflated expectations of victory—liberation, reform, change, democracy, and so on—while the reality on the ground has been one of repeated defeats. Over the years—from the moment of defeat until today—this has deeply eroded public trust in ruling regimes and rendered their achievements hollow. Disillusionment and loss of confidence have been among the main drivers of emigration from the region, leading to a substantial loss of those with talent and intellect, capable of enacting real change. According to Dr. Saleh, these same root causes apply to the current ‘Arab Naksa’ in the face of Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza. For years, Arab media has repeated slogans about Arab unity, liberation, and the rights of the Palestinian people. Yet if we trace the actual practices of Arab regimes—not only in relation to the Palestinian cause but even toward Palestinians residing in their own countries—we find neglect and complicity. While the media, from 1967 until today, continues to speak of ‘Arab coordination against the enemy,’ defeat has followed defeat, with no real coordination or even strong shared Arab positions to speak of.
This wide gap between the ruling regimes and their rhetoric, on one hand, and the aspirations, hopes, and desires of the Arab peoples on the other, creates a drastic disconnect between citizens and the state, effectively undermining any developmental project aimed at addressing the aftermath of defeat. Any developmental project’s essence is the human being, and at the core of humanity lie freedom and dignity. If a person loses their freedom and dignity, they lose all capacity for creativity, change, and innovation—in fact, they come to fear it—and become powerless to confront any colonial project or external ambitions. He elaborated, ‘After the defeat, we should have seen “states of freedoms” across the region, but instead, all we found were “states of intelligence services”.’
After the 1967 defeat, the Palestinian people’s hopes for Arab support were shattered, and it became imperative for them to take up their own cause and fight their own battle. This gave rise to what can be described as a growing Palestinian nationalism while the rhetoric of ‘pan-Arab’ nationalism declined as Arab states increasingly retreated into their own interests and internal challenges. With the emergence of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its national project as the sole representative of the Palestinian people against the Israeli settler-colonial project, the involvement of Arab regimes in the Palestinian cause became contingent on each regime’s interests—from the Camp David Accords until today. This Arab fragmentation, with the Palestinian internal division at its core, is a direct cause of the situation we witness today. But conversely, why did Israel advance after the war, and how did it reach such levels of arrogance, dominance, and influence?
Dr. Fahmy emphasized that Israel should not be viewed simply as a state of around ten million people; rather, it is more akin to an American aircraft carrier—an extension of the military power of the world’s largest superpower. At the same time, Israel is not an indigenous state in the region but an ‘alien’ presence, making its existence an existential threat not only to Palestine but to the entire region. Israel is a colonial power with a colonial project spanning over a century, historically supported by the largest colonial powers—first Britain, and currently the United States. It enjoys unprecedented and absolute backing from Western countries with significant economic and political weight. Its geopolitical influence is growing alarmingly as a key military and strategic ally of the United States. This is the reality of Israel, and this definition must be clearly and repeatedly asserted. Raising Arab awareness about the existential threat posed by Israeli colonial policies to the entire region is essential.
External support from Western powers, however, is not the only reason for Israel’s dominance and its threat to the entire region. According to Dr. Fahmy, other factors play a crucial role, foremost among them the fragmentation and division among Arab states. Some corrupt regimes proudly claim to act against their own peoples and those of the region, aligning themselves with Western powers to protect their wealth and thrones. The deterioration and weakness of Arab regimes—economically, politically, and socially—combined with their heavy reliance on external support, create dependent governments incapable of taking serious or independent stances. This is compounded by the absence of institutions and the complete lack of oversight or accountability. There is no army subject to civilian control, no media capable of asking critical questions, and no judicial institutions empowered to hold corrupt or criminal leaders accountable.
Conversely, the voices of the Arab peoples remain silenced, deprived of all freedoms, and unable even to protest. Therefore, there is a close connection between the liberation of Arab peoples and the liberation of Palestine. According to Fahmy, the most logical sequence is first the liberation of Arab peoples from dependent, authoritarian, and fragile regimes, and the restoration of freedom, dignity, and national emancipation to the Arab citizen. Only then can Palestine be truly liberated, and the colonial ambitions of Israel in the entire region effectively confronted.
As the discussion drew to a close, the speakers agreed that Israel has become addicted to war and no longer engages in negotiations or reaching political solutions. They warned that unless Arab peoples free themselves from decayed, submissive regimes complicit with the settler-colonial project, the region will remain under the constant threat of Israeli dominance. Furthermore, they emphasized that Arab intellectuals and elites must move from the role of mere observers to committed actors, willing to bear the cost and defend their convictions to the end.
- Watch the full seminar here:
Share this Post