The Plight of Syria

 

 If you have read through my previous ramblings, you will see that, while I prefer to speak about God's Word and the state of Christianity in the western world in particular, I will sometimes also delve into politics and world events as I see they may have a spiritual or prophetic connection. Over the last several days we have witnessed the sudden downfall of the Assad government in Syria, which leaves a lot about the future of Syria in question.

First some history about Syria, but this is recent history going back only about 50 years. Hafez al-Assad, father to Bashar al-Assad, became the president of Syria in 1971 after working his way up the chain of command of Syria's Air Force. Hafez was a member of the Ba'ath Party, which is famously known as the same political party that Saddam Hussein of Iraq was the leader of. What al-Assad shared with Saddam Hussein was that the people groups to which both belonged were actually the minority in their countries, which while it does not excuse the brutality of their governments, it could explain the reason for the brutality, in desperation to hold onto power. In the mid 1960's, the Ba'athists of Syria overthrew the civilian leadership of their own party, which was probably the beginning of the coming dictatorial rule of Syria. In 1970, through political manoeuvring, Hafez overthrew the leader of the Ba'athist Party, and his personal mentor, and in 1971 Hafez became the President of Syria.

The al-Assad family has lead Syria ever since then, with Bashar al-Assad becoming the President after the death of his father in 2000. Bashar was not supposed to become the President. His older brother Basil was supposed to take the mantel, but he died and Bashar was recalled from London where he was studying to become an ophthalmologist. Bashar has been the defacto leader of Syria since 2000, through several "election" cycles, in which he was regularly declared the "winner". There is little confidence about the free nature of the election processes in Syria and it is largely recognized that Bashar al-Assad was a dictatorial leader.

The above information is historical and is, to the best of my abilities to discern, factual. What follows includes some facts as well as some personal speculation and should be considered an opinion editorial. Please feel free to undertake your own research and differ from my own views as you see fit.

Those who are a little older may recall the "Arab Spring" of 2010-2011 in which several Middle Eastern political leaders faced revolt in their countries and most were deposed, some of them were even killed. I am working from memory here to a significant degree, but as I recall, many of the renegade forces, particularly in Egypt and Libya, were made up of Muslim fighters who wished to assert Sharia Law in their countries. Bashar al-Assad has been facing the pressures and forces initiated in this Arab Spring for thirteen years and his country has been in a state of civil war through most of that time, with there being a sort of uneasy peace as of late. This was not due to any negotiated agreement, but simply due to a temporary cessation in fighting likely due more to fatigue than anything else.

My opinion of the Arab Spring has not changed since it began. I believe that the uprising was initiated, funded and planned by western governments in order to upset the order that had settled in the Arab world. I do not understand the politics of such a move, but there were ways in which things were accomplished that seemed to indicate an overarching hand of control, including the provision of weapons and training for those who rose up.

Now, I am not trying to make a case that the men who were overthrown were good men or admirable leaders. Bashar al-Assad didn't appear to have any economic vision whatsoever and he was known for having used his military to subdue his political opponents and acting brutally against his own people when they protested against him, as was also the case for Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, who was deposed before him in 2011.

What I want to draw attention to is that in the years prior to the Arab Spring of 2010, it appears that these Arab leaders were actually softening their staunch Islamic positions, had been courting the acceptance of western leaders and may have been leading their countries towards more western freedoms. And there has been support for al-Assad from the ancient Christian communities in Syria as he has been defending them from violent jihadist rebels, with some Christians taking seats in his government. In other words, even though things were still dark in these countries, there was a small glimmer of hope on the horizon under the leadership of these men.

So my thoughts wander to question why the populations of these countries would have started revolting against their leaders at this time? The leaders may not have been democratically elected, but they were slowly at least putting systems into place that were leading towards some type of populist democracy taking place, although this was not likely to be fully implemented before these men were willing to relinquish the reins of power for themselves, likely due to age. As a result of these policy changes, it was becoming safer for religious groups other than Muslims to practice their faiths more openly. So I wonder what the western world has to gain by upsetting the slow and gradual shift in the Middle East towards what the west claims they want to see there anyway.

Now we see Syria taken over by a staunchly Muslim military force that has, in the past, called for strict Sharia Law to be enforced in the country. The leader of this force, Abu Mohammed al-Golani, has previous ties to Al-Quaeda, whom the western world has previously called a terrorist organization and has spent countless millions of dollars fighting wars against. He has since abandoned Al-Quaeda and has renamed his own militia Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (or HTS), which in Arabic translates as “the organization for the liberation of Syria.”[a] So what are we to make of this latest development and what are the goals of this new government?

I have read that the first public act of al-Golani was to enter the courtyard of an eighth century mosque and proclaim a “victory for the Islamic nation.”[a] This cannot be comforting to the Syrian Christian community, but at the same time, while the HTS has had control over the Syrian region of Idlib over the last several years, it is reported that it has been a moderating force there, where it showed itself to be open to ethnic and religious minorities. In addition to this, the Islamist rebels under the leadership of al-Golani have actually been returning confiscated property to Christians and sending "very strong messages of tolerance" to the Christians in the area.[b] Daniel Corrou, who works in refugee services in the area and who has been watching these developments closely, states that the now forming government is “talking about a form of Islamism that we haven’t seen before, not jihadi and not Islamist [extremism].” Hayat Tahrir al-Sham leader Mr. al-Jolani has been telling Syrians “that if [they] don’t like Islamist governance, then [they] haven’t seen it done correctly.”[b] In addition to this, al-Golani has reportedly stopped using his arabic name of Abu Mohammed al-Golani, and has instead returned to his given name, Ahmed al-Sharaa. Is this a sign that he is serious about leading Syria into a new time of peace and prosperity for all it's citizens as a legitimate world leader, rather than as a militant Islamic leader? I guess only time will tell.

What really crossed my mind as I have been watching all of this happening is the prophecy against Damascus, the capital city of Syria, that we read in Isaiah 17, where in verse one we read, “Behold, Damascus is about to be removed from being a city, And will become a fallen ruin." At the time of Isaiah, Syria was allied with the northern kingdom of Israel, which was alternately at war and at peace with the southern kingdom of Judah. Keep in mind that even though there was strife between the different houses of Israel (the twelve tribes, specifically the 10 northern against the two southern), God had warned His people not to make military alliances with other nations for their protection, but to rather trust in God for their protection, as Joshua warns the nation of Israel before his death, which we read in Joshua 23:1-13. However, Israel to the north allied with Syria to attack Judah to the south. In response, Judah allied itself with the Assyrians, who attacked and pillaged Damascus. But Damascus was not destroyed. It is one of the oldest cities on earth, and while it has been attacked and pillaged several times, it has always been rebuilt. So we are likely looking at the words in Isaiah 17 being a dual fulfillment of prophecy. Though we don't know exactly when Damascus will be made a heap of  ruins, it is believed that this prophecy has not yet been fully fulfilled in history. It may be possible that the events that are happening right now may be laying the groundwork for the city of Damascus to finally come to it's prophesied end. It is our job to watch and recognize the signs of the times.

Sources:

[a] https://www.christianitytoday.com/2024/12/syria-bashar-assad-christians-golani-religious-minorities/

[b] https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2024/12/11/syria-al-assad-hayat-tahrir-al-sham-alawite-christian-isis-jolani

If this topic is of interest to you and you would like to hear my view on other world issues, please let me know what your interests are in the comments section.