It’s symbolic wording and on that I agree. What the beast is is immaterial, as are most of the details contained in the Bible; it’s the story and meaning behind the details that matter.
But for someone now taking a “symbolic tack” you’re quite adamant about what the symbols mean, that it cannot be an elephant or hippo! Thus the question: if it’s not an elephant or hippo, what is it and what led you to that conclusion?
In the context of a 2000 BC Arab I’d say an elephant - something they would have never seen - would be a terrible beast beyond comprehension. Larger than the largest camel, ground shaking steps, massive in size and power. It’s good imagery for that, and if the largest game you had ever encountered were deer, mountain lions and the like you bet you’d be afraid to approach that thing with a sword...;)
There are two species of elephant that are at this time widespread - the Indian elephant throughout temperate Asia as far west as Syria and the African elephant in regions north and south of the Sahara. India is just the first region that elephants are tamed. They were not something Arabs had never seen.
Here is a link for a map of Syria
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/syria