Assuming you're referring to the failed attack of October 14, Israeli air superiority had little to do with it. With the possible exception of 3rd brigade most losses were due to IDF tanks. The same was true of most other failed Egyptian attacks.
The Egyptians had no choice but to rely on SAMs because the MIG-21 had so many drawbacks--poor cockpit visibility, limited endurance, ineffective weapons....
The Egyptians' worst mistake was to squander too much in futile attacks from October 10-17.
Even if most losses are down to the direct action of tanks, it's presence or absence of air superiority that allows them to be effective or not.
Yes, they had inferior planes, and probably an inferior corps of pilots, but they knew that and so they did rely on SAMs, and it was working fine for the purposes of that war.
They did make a number of mistakes here. The overarching reason they were fighting was to regain Sinai and liberate Palestine, so ending a war having gained some of the Sinai but without even touching Palestinian territory was a hard political move. Pausing for a half decade and bolstering their air defense network would have been the military option, but this would also mean doubling down on the liberating Palestine and anti-Israel rhetoric, and they'd have been less likely to get Sinai back by other means.
The problem with Arabic armies aren’t equipment or bravery, the problem is low morale, lack of discipline, incompetent officers and lack of initiative. This is not caused by Arabic culture, but is a result of their political systems, which create these problem with a focus on loyalty over competence and the lack of political legitimacy (resulting in the low morale). We have seen example of Arabic armed forces who do well, these are usual militias loyal to religious-political movements, with Hezbollah and the Houthis as the best known examples. I don’t use ISIS as example as their way of fighting couldn’t really be transferred to conventional forces.
The lack of air superiority of Israel doesn’t make these problems go away. Yes Israel could very well have lost without air superiority if they fought like they usual do, but if they lacked air superiority the Israeli would have fought differently.
We should expect low moral, lack of discipline, and even incompetence on the part of officers, when they're trying to invade territory outside their core territory, having previously been focused on maintaining their existing non-core territories. At the end of the day, it's hard to get even volunteers to put in a full effort to capture territory for some foreigners and their own elites, and even harder to get conscripts or tribal levies to do this.
There is no example of an independent Palestine with international recognition working on a military that could defend it's core territory and also attempt to capture other territories it considers to be core or vital to security, but that military would have the same mission as, and so would look like, the early IDF, and not like the standard Arab military's.
The military of Iraq was defeated decisively in Desert Storm, sure, but it was fighting against the best military in the world, and four or five that were in the top ten, so I think it gets underestimated. But if they were fighting any of their neighbors, without the involvement of the coalition, they WOULD have had air superiority, so it doesn't fit neatly into this thread's scenario.