2020 Hindsight – Perspective of a Differing Review of Damascene Revelations

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Dec 29, 2020 at 19:05

2020 Hindsight – Perspective of a Differing Review of Damascene Revelations:

What a difference twenty years makes: who would have then dreamed that the Golan, though disputed, would be recognized as decidedly Israeli territory? The hue and cry on the opposing side of the border and the exalting elation in Jerusalem provide glaring evidences of how far the relations between Damascus and Jerusalem have deteriorated and how much international costs of political capital were spent, then wasted in lost efforts as the Syrian government ran roughshod (putting it mildly) over its own people under the pretense of ethnic cleansing in a region that had long since lost any national sense of identity, since the territory was appropriated by the French last century. Further, Syria's inability to deal with ISIL without American interference did not help either; or did it?
Although the French colonialist influences seem to be well out of view here, the interferences of other imperialistic attitudes are well in view as the international community seems intent on impressing non-Middle Eastern imperatives as the region smolders, then flares up in repetitive patterns of proxy-induced terror indicative of territorial covetousness and irredeemable lusts of power and dominion.
Damascus is historically implicated in these patterns of conquests, from the ancients of the Assyrian/Mesopotamian marauders era through the Persian, Greek, Roman and Muslim invasions to the modern squabbles since the fall of the Ottomans; after which the European influences sought to remake the Middle East into some reformation of the crusader era, unsuccessfully. Leave us not forget that the more eastern and northern influences of the Turks and descendants of the Scythians/Slavic persuasion are present as well; this has a heavy Biblical read to it when one considers how Babylon was integral in so much of this connective history.
Yet Damascus has a prescient presence in modern historical implications: think not? In contravening imperatives, the Russian presence will provide evidence they are in the region for the long haul, presumably for their own long-term visions of empire. Ivan the terrible provided the impetus for that and only the Russian revolution intervened for a small duration did their presence take some time to manifest an enduring desire to reap what many others sought as they thought they could, but never did. Damascus remains for the moment, yet for how long before the pressures of the empire seeking of other eventually crushes Damascus, forever.
Here is a clue, the children of Abraham did rule in Damascus, for a while. Do the Russians think to do better, or lose everything for the cause of their delusion? It is theirs to lose, after all.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".