Conclusions and commentary based on a brief examination of some teachings of pastor Jim Brown of Grace and Truth Ministries, in Hendersonville, TN.

Conclusions and commentary based on a brief examination of some teachings of pastor Jim Brown of Grace and Truth Ministries, in Hendersonville, TN.

 First off, let me state that Pastor Jim Brown  makes himself difficult to examine and document his teaching, and thus expose his errors, since he presents almost all his teachings via audio and video, and some poor images of tracts. Even his "Statement Of Faith" is a video and I do not even see anything to read from him on the nature of God (Father, Son and Spirit) and eternal punishment.

However based upon what I have read and somewhat heard from what can be readily apprehended, I would partly describe him as a self-appointed guru on Greek who has found his niche in attacking sound beliefs of established evangelical faith (besides some unsound ones), thereby negating any need for affirmation by such, while drawing away  disciples after himself,"   (Acts 20:30) as a crafty  rebel with a purported cause. Which discipling he  does by often engaging in manipulation of language) which can deceive the simple.. 

Those who have a spirit of rebellion against authority in general are typically attracted to men such as Brown since he is seen as an ally against leadership and thus accountability to the same.

Like many cult teachers who operate under the same spirit and premise, while he does not actually appeal to another source of Divine revelation, yet he essentially much does the like thru crafting the meaning of texts based upon restrictively selecting a meaning of Greek words as absolutely definitive (including relying on the root word fallacy), and selectively so, while often spiritualizing away literal aspects  and meanings of teachings (rejecting, baptism, the Lord's supper for two), while also employing false dichotomies and engaging in logical fallacies, etc. 

By which tactics he can force texts to teach some often tortured interpretations (see below on some), while overall majoring on predestination,

Baptism:

Based upon just a   search of his tract images,   I find that he dismisses baptízō as meaning to "dip, plunge, immerse" though that is just what it describes. Such as "And Jesus, when he was baptized, [baptízō] went up straightway out of the water,"(Mat 3:16)  "were all baptized [baptízō] of him in the river of Jordan," (Mark 1:5; cf. John 3:23) "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?, And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized [baptízō] him." (Act 8:36, 38) "Can any man forbid water, that these should  not be baptized, [baptízō] which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Act 10:47)

Brown's recourse here is to invoke "bapto" as being the original word, and a noun (which become a very in action), but which actually means baptizo is derived from it, and based on that, presuming  a word inherently carries one meaning in all of its uses, or can  only precisely mean what the word it was derived  means, is called the "root  word fallacy." 

As this commentary attests:

 This word [baptízō ]  should not be confused with baptô (911). The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution.

The Lord's supper:

Next, consistent with Browns' hyper  anti-literalism, is his  utter rejection the ordinance of the Lord's supper, by  wholly spiritualizing it.  (https://www.graceandtruth.net/images/stories/eatflesh.jpg) 

Yet it is manifestly clear that the NT church, fully under grace, literally obeyed the words which Paul states in 1 Co. 11,  "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. "After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (1 Corinthians 11:24-25)

And  Paul has much to say in both 1 Corinthians  10 and 11 on the Lord's supper, which "feast of charity" Jude 1:12 alludes to, all as literal observances, effectually remembering the Lord's death via a communal meal which declares/proclaims   it, (1 Corinthians 11:26)  by manifesting the effects of His death, that of union with Christ and each other as members together,  being bought with His sinless shed blood. Which Catholics pervert (as shown here, by the grace of God) while Brown negates it.  

Love:

Another example of Brown's follies include reasoning that since  "phileo" means "affection" ("For the Father himself loveth [phileo] you, because ye have loved [phileo] me"" - John 16:27) but  "love" (agapeo) for neighbor   and our enemy does not mean showing  affection, therefore to love them  means to  "give our neighbor and our enemy all that God is  - His instruction," and "feed them them the only food that is legal (prescribed) for sheep to consume (the Law - instruction in God's word)."  (https://www.graceandtruth.net/images/stories/What%20is%20Love.jpg) 

Thus,  "Thou shalt love [agapaō] thy neighbour as thyself" would mean just to give  instruction to them, as if that is the only way humans love themselves,  which is absurd.  (See more here on these words."( 

 "Accept Christ is false doctrine"?:

Another example of his logical fallacies (either-or position, false dilemma) in his polemics is reasoning that since "the natural man receiveth [déxomai] not the things of the Spirit of God, nor can know them since they are spiritually discerned," (1 Co. 2:14)   then to "Accept Christ is false doctrine" as he labels it. (https://www.graceandtruth.net/images/stories/Accept%20Christ.jpg)

However, while 1 Co. 2:14 is wholly true,  that by nature  man cannot receive  not the things of the Spirit of God, yet this does not mean that to "accept [déxomai = "warmly receptive, welcoming" and which  is usually translated as "receive" including Christ - Mt. 10:40)] Christ" is false doctrine, for  God draws souls, opens hearts, grants repentance and gives faith (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; 16:8; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8, 9) and moves us to obey, (Phil.2:13) thus both motivating and enabling us to do what we otherwise could not and would not do. The only thing that man can and must take credit for is that of resisting and disobeying God, which we are warned against doing. 

Thus,  to "accept/receive Christ" is true doctrine, as meaning  by effectual penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating faith in the Divine Son of God and Lord of all,, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) which is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28)

And by which faith the redeemed soul is "accepted in the Beloved" and positionally seated with Him in Heaven, on His account, glory to God. (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6; cf. Phil. 3:21) And those who die in that obedient faith will go to be forever with Him at death or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)
In contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; 10:25-39)

No demons, only self?:

 The last example of Brown's "wresting" of Scripture (2 Pt. 3:18) I will deal with Brown's denial of actual demon possession, teaching that all such descriptions  refers to one's own sinful nature (which can be described as demonic, and is to be mortified, but which is not the same as actual demons, unclean spirits).

And which example  is from  The Doctrine of the Devil audio message (https://www.graceandtruth.net/videos-pdf-mp3s/gematria-series/message/3030-doctrine-of-the-devil-demons-are-self-demons-are-genies-demons-are-fairies-demons-are-guardian-angels-demons-are-totems-self-is-man-s-only-problem, mainly btwn  the 4 and 25  minute section). 

In which  he selectively works with Matthew 8:28-33, Mark 1:23-27, and  Luke 4:31-36 yet not all the pertinent verses, and in which he reasons/argues/asserts  that, 

• since  "spirit'  as in "unclean spirit" means breath (and you never get all your CO2 out of your body);

• and since  the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is Truth (the "Spirit is Truth" in KJV -  1 John  5:6) - thus  inferring a denial of the Spirit as an Divine entity/person, while he also  denigrated Pentecostals;

• and since the man possessed with the unclean spirit said "we" and "us" and then "I"  (Saying, Let us  alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I [which is not in the Greek] know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God - Mark 1:24) ;

• and since  Brown falsely states  that Jesus rebuked him [not the demons], saying, "Hold thy peace, and come out of him" (Mark 1:24);

• and since the Greek word for "him" is "auto" which he uses "automobile" as an example for, as in self-propelled;

• and since Brown states that Jesus rebuked "him" (the man, not his demons - upon which false premise Brown much rests his argument on);

 then it means that the man    possessed with the unclean spirit  was lying when he referred to himself in the plural;

 and since Brown states  the word for "demon" (used in the parallel account in Lk. 4) is " daimonion" which means "seller of fortunes;"

 and since the single Greek word in Matthew 8:28 (among other places) for "possessed with devils" is "daimonizomai"  which [can] mean insane;

then thus  Brown states "unclean spirit" simply refers to self (!) as in "deny  himself" in all the accounts(!)

Rather, Brown's contrivance is what is "in-sane" exegetically speaking, being a work of  sophistry which conclusion is simply  untenable in the light of context as well as the Greek.

First   as regards inferring a denial of the Spirit as an Divine entity/person based upon  the Holy Spirit being Truth, if Brown is indeed denying this manifest Truth, it would be s another example of his proclivity to engage in false either/or reasoning. 

For  the Holy "Spirit is Truth" 1 John  5:6)  is not a denial of His personhood any more "God is love" in  1 John 4:16 is, nor  that  a person   "which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6) means that such is no longer a person. As with God is love, it means that this is what He consists of as His overall attribute, thanks be to God.

Secondly, the argument Brown majors on here is that since  the man possessed with the unclean spirit said "we" and "us" and then "I"  (Saying, Let us  alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I  know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God - Mark 1:24); 

and  since Jesus rebuked him (not the demons. Brown states), saying, "Hold thy peace, and come out of him" (Mark 1:24)  then Brown concludes this this means that the man was lying (as regards being many, "us," and "we") with  the Bible in recording these prevaricating words, and therefore Brown concludes that this refers to self, not demons. 

Yet this   is easily refuted by the fact that  there is no "I" in the Greek here,   despite Greek being what this false teacher relies on so much, no, not in Mark 1:24 nor in Luke 4:34, while Mt. 8:29 leaves out this response.  

In addition,  the Greek word for "know"  here (eidō) is used only in certain past tenses and thus is translated as  "knowing," "seeing" "perceiving" which it is collectively translated as over 40 times in the KJV, and neither is there any question mark in the Greek. 

Thus (by going to the Greek which Brown does here) the text can read,  "saying,  Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth, art thou come to destroy us,  knowing thee, who thou art, the Holy One of God[?] (Mark 1:24)

 In any case, it remains that there is no "I" here, contrary to Brown's recourse, and the fear of the demons is due to their having known that Jesus is the Holy One of God.

And rather than the  "And Jesus rebuked him [auto], saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him" (Mark 1:25) referring to the man as just him-self as in self-propelled automobile  (as Brown argues in contending that the demons are just one's "selfish self"), and not the sources of the man speaking, Strong's definition of the Greek "auto"  is "the reflexive pronoun self [auto] used (alone or in the compound of G1438) of the third person and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons..." 

And thus the word "auto" at issue is  translated as them 1,081times and as  They  125 times, as it is in Mat 8:32  regarding this  command plurality,  "And he said unto them, Go" and in Luke 8:32 in dealing with the same, "And he suffered them." (KJV) 

And of course, the fact that the Lord cast out demons renders the premise that the latter just refers to putting the flesh to death, is simply absurd!

And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him. And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. (Mark 1:25-27)

Would to God that self could be instantly wholly expelled with a word, rather than requiring daily mortification of the sinful nature by yielding to the Spirit, putting on the new man,  (Rm. 6-8; Col. 3) though deliverance is to be had from its domination by dying to self, though not eradicated, and thus the warnings against yielding to the flesh. 

Daimonion = seller of fortunes = self?:

And as  for  the word for "demon"  " daimonion" " (used in the parallel account in Lk. 4)  meaning "seller of fortunes," The root meaning of the Greek word daimon is "knowing" or "intelligence." and  and while "the Ancient Greeks had several meanings" for daemon, and consistent with this attribute of  "knowing" or "intelligence,   the main meaning is said to be, 

 “he who dispenses fate, a spirit that gives a person his or her personality traits. The word is derived from Proto-Indo-European daimon, which means “provider, divider (of fortunes or destinies),” from the root da- “to divide.” Xenocrates, a Greek philosopher of the Platonic Academy, believed that god is above all, and there are demonical powers intermediate between the divine and the mortal world which consist in conditions of the soul. (https://greekreporter.com/2023/10/20/ancient-greek-demon/#:~:text=Unlike%20today%2C%20the%20Ancient%20Greeks,his%20or%20her%20personality%20traits.%E2%80%9D)

But only by engaging in the aforementioned root word fallacy  can one assert that its root meaning MUST  be what it means in its later uses.   To the contrary, for instance, the English word "nice" comes from the Latin original  nescius, which literally means "unknowing, ignorant."  "Egregious" originally meant remarkably good,  from the Latin egregius, meaning "illustrious, select"—literally, "standing out from the flock. In Old English, “pretty” meant crafty and cunning.

And as regards the single Greek word in Matthew 8:28 (among other places) for "possessed with devils" being "daimonizomai"  which [can] mean insane, contrary to Brown, that  in no way is contrary to demons being real, since insanity can be an effect of such.

Cast out self?:

In addition, no amount of spinning can   spiritualize or explain away the numerous other cases of casting of demons  (which is what Brown can be expected to do)  as being literally just that.  Jesus did not send a legion of selves - whose insanity was the effect of such -   from one man into a heard of swine, though it belongs there.

Predestination and other issues:

As regards the issue of predestination which Brown major on, I did not take the time to listen to him one this, but as regards the  meaning the basis for it predestination and election, i will comment somewhat on this issue  which separates Calvinists and Arminians  (named after their respective founders, and both of which varies somewhat in details). Which is one of the 4 major divisions that I see  within the body of Christ, yet which are typically somewhat related.  

The  Arminians understanding of predestination that if know of  is  that of being "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ,"  (1 Peter 1:2) as meaning God elected souls based upon His of foreknowledge of what they would do with that grace. (https://holyjoys.org/wesleyan-arminians-predestination)

Let me say here that the omniscient (all knowing) omnipotent (all-powerful) Creator-God, who knows what all the effects will be of every action in every place (and all the thoughts motivation of man behind them), not only the effects in this present speck of time in out location but their full extent in time and eternity;

and can and will make them all work out for what is Good, which justice for the impenitent relative to their accountability, and for the good of those who choose Light over darkness by God/s grace, by effectual faith in the risen Lord Jesus;

will be shown to be justified in all his actions.    

Calvinists believe in predestination based upon unconditional deterministic election, which a face-value reading of Romans 9-11 can be seen to teach, which  is taken to mean that God damned/hated the non-elect before they themselves did any wrong, and not because they did  or would;

And thus, being born with an inherited  Adamic  nature they are not simply unable to   effectually believe on the Lord Jesus for salvation, but since (according to Calvinism)   "salvlfic grace" is never granted them, and thus they have not other recourse but to l live and die as damned sinners, though they can somewhat choose how sinful and damanable they will be.

But likewise that God  loved/elected those predestinated to salvation  before they were born, to which He grants "salvlfic grace" (which is a extra-scriptural  theological term used to describe a type of grace beyond "common grace," which all souls experience to varying degrees)  and which   grace   is held as being irresistible;

And  by which they are regenerated by the Spirit before they even  repent/believe (this being two sides of the same coin, for turning to the Lord means due to faith turning from unbelief and its life, according to the Light one has)  but which they therefore do in the same experiential moment of conversion.

However  this means that the non-elect, who  are not simply unable to repent/believe  due to being born spiritually dead,  but are  never granted "salvific grace,"   then they thus are never  enabled to obey the command to all men everywhere to repent and  believe for salvation, (Acts 17:30)  and thus they are damned.   

But which condition and its  basic result is effectively  due the sin of their father Adam, which left  them in a condition which they cannot obtain salvation from.

Which is contrary to the justice of God. reflective of His character,  which He Himself states and affirms numerous times, that He will not judicially punish children for what their father's did. "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16; cf. 2Kings 14:5, 6;  2Chron. 25:4;  Jer. 31:29, 30;  Ezek.  18:20) 

That does not mean that we do not experience effects due to the choices of others, esp. fathers, for good and or evil, (cf. John 4:37, 38)  but that we are not being punished as guilty or rewarded as meritorious due to what another did.

The only way I  see that  this contradiction with God's justice might be reconciled, though I do  not argue it is true,   is to allow  that  the non-elect are  granted unmerited salvific grace, if not unwarranted in the light them being born in a damnable condition over which the had no control, as God is merciful. 

And that such grace can be resisted (with the statement of polemical objection in Romans 9:19 "who hath resisted his will?" being understood as  ignoring levels of saving grace, one being   determinate grace, but also that of a resistible level of saving grace),  which resistance is consistent with  such texts as  Proverbs 1:20.  

But that the elect are given more unwarranted grace, like as souls experience varying degrees of common grace, and in this case salvific grace is given to such a degree as to make souls willing whereas otherwise they would not, thru God giving more grace.  

Under this system, the non-elect are not effectively dammed because of the sin of Adam leaving them in an inescapable condition, as instead God seeks their salvation,  being 

"not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, (2 Pt. 3:9) 

and having  "no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live,"   (Ezekiel 33:11)

 for God   "commandeth all men every where to repent"  (Acts 17:30) 

for God  "will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth,  (1 Timothy 2:4) 

for Christ  became    "the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world," (1 John 2:2) 

and finally weeping over their stubborn terminal impenitence,  Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes" (Luke 19:41-42) 

as they die in their sins, even in reprobation.

And thus men adding the word "elect" to the sacred text in  such verses as above cannot be justified, which Calvinism must do in order to disallow the all-too obvious contradictions of the Calvinistic understanding of Romans 9 thru 11 with so many other clear statements on the justice of God. 

Who can indeed do whatever He pleaseth (Psalms 115:3) but it would not please Him to act contrary to His own words, His own standard for justice, as in effectively condemning souls due to a terminal condition which they have no hope of deliverance from. 

In contrast, under the alternative conditions described, the non-elect are only judged for what they are accountable for, which is wholly Scriptural, (Romans 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Matthew 25:31-46; Rev. 10:11-15) not for what they did not do (which is also the case in rewarding faith in  1 Co. 3). 

In which it will be manifest that all the verses such as the above applied to them also, but that  the lost resisted   grace by which they could have been saved, calling "Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you. Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof."  (Proverbs 1:23-25)

Eternal security:

Related to Calvinism is that of eternal security - though many Arminians  also hold to it - is that of "once saved, always saved" (OSAS) which Calvinism affirms, but only as preserving faith (the "P" in the T.U.L.I.P doctrine), but which is contrary to the many Scriptures which  warn believers, as believers, against developing an "evil heart of unbelief in departing from living God," from the faith they once held, falling from grace, making Christ of no effect, to no profit, drawing back to perdition," and yielding to pressure to deny the faith after conversion, so that Paul's labor would be in vain, (Gal. 5:1-5; Heb. 3:12-14; Heb. 10:25-31, Heb. 10: 38-39; 1 Thessalonians 3:5)

Cessationism vs. continuationism:

Also typically related to the two major views on election  are those of the perpetuity of supernatural "Pentecostal" gifts, which Calvinists almost all reject (cessationism vs. continuationism), and often cite the rampant grievous aberrations within it in arguing against it. However, despite such there is no argument from Scripture that justifies the premise that all such have ceased  and the coming of that which is perfect, (1 Corinthians 13:10) meaning perfect revelation, and thus its knowing,  is what 1 John 3:2 refers to.

Futurism; supersessionism:

 Also typical within Calvinism is that of the rejection of the futuristic eschatological view of Scripture, which holds that much of Matthew 24 and most all of  the book of Revelation  has a yet future fulfillment, and that prophetic promises to the Jews as a people group and nation no longer  apply to them, but only to the the church (supersessionism, also called replacement theology). Which rejection is problematic (though they say the same about futuristic eschatology) and as regard the Jews,  it is  contrary to  Romans 11.

Rapture"

Along with this is the rejection of two second comings of Christ, meaning the "Rapture" which almost always is held as preceding the Great Tribulation, which itself is Scriptural, though I do not believe the pretrib rapture is, as instead I see this as occurring at the end of the Tribulation, but without going into detail here.

Conclusion: 

However, despite my proffered explanation here on Calvinism, besides rejecting the   Calvinistic understanding of Romans 9-11 as regards the non-elect being effectively damned  due to the sin of Adam, and my rejection Calvinism's exclusion  of saving grace  being offered to the non-elect, I do not feel any need to  reconcile the contradictions, as I can leave them is a state of suspension (see Psalms 131) while awaiting more illumination of the word, while treating souls that way the Bible teaches. Which is as souls called to repent/believe, and as able and responsible to do so.

This being said, all sides on these issue can preach the same basic gospel which in essence is that of  effectual  penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating (though Calvinists would change the order in that moment of conversion)  faith in the Divine Son of God (http://peacebyjesus.net/deityofchrist.html) and Lord of all, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) who saves sinners by His sinless shed blood. 

And which faith is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28) whom  they shall go to be with or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Glory and thanks be to God.

Which is in contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; 10:25-39)   which is the only basic aspect here that normally  sees  in evangelical faith

This is all I am going to write  here, having taken many hours to do  as one who is 71 years ago and often with mental fatigue, but who was  spiritually born of the Spirit  (Jn. 3:2-7)  thru the aforementioned faith, thanks be to God. 

And being in a Catholic dominated area, I then  knew of no evangelical church I felt could trust, not knowing much, but was daily fed by evangelical preaching and teaching over evangelical radio. In which I daily  heard (being a truck driver with a radio) a consistent basic gospel message and relevant teaching from such men of God as Chuck Smith, John MacArthur, M.R. Dehan, and various others. 

And as one very hungry for Bible Truth and seeking to obey it, then I recall having no real problems with certain teachings that were debatable, but I focused on what was clear. 

Later I was part of a Fundamental Baptist church due to their commitment to basic Truths and evangelism, and even later was part of a  Pentecostal mission (which met in a factory building), as well as a Calvinistic S. Baptist church, but  , by the grace of God, I continued to evangelize with the basic gospel all shared. 

All these had/have  their own strengths and weaknesses and errors (though both preached the same basic gospel, versus that of Rome and cults). But holding to the strengths of both, and rejecting errors, means avoiding a false balance (while    rejecting  the aberrant distinctive teachings of each)  within the intent to be faithful to the Lord.

In our home, we have a FM transmitter randomly broadcasting approx. 14,000 sermons from  varied preachers and teachers, and which overall  preach the same basic gospel, and minister to those who believe it, and by which we are edified, though not concurring on certain errors such  as I referred to above. 

Which is in contrast to sitting at the feet of some self-appointed  guru on Greek who has found his niche in attacking sound beliefs of established  evangelical faith (besides some unsound ones of others), thereby negating any need for affirmation by such, as he engages in manipulation  of  language in order to deceive the simple.

 May  God   grant all “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.”  (2 Timothy 2:25)

ChatGPT https://poe.com/, analysis of Genesis 3, of tactics of the devil, and how it relates to political rulers.

ChatGPT https://poe.com/, analysis of Genesis 3, of tactics of the devil, and how it relates to political rulers (asked last night).

[Question] In the Bible, the devil (Lucifer, Satan, the serpent ) is described as a selfish being, seeking dominion and power (Isaiah 14:13, 14; John 10:10) After being cast down from Heaven due to his selfish presumptuous assertion that he would take his place on his creators throne (seat of power), he was cast down to earth where he tempted Eve - the first women, and husband of Adam and who had been given dominion over the earth - to disobey God by consuming fruit which God forbade the humans to eat, least they experience spiritual death, and eventually physical death.

Read the following, and tell me what you think the devil's tactic was using psychology on Eve:

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. (Genesis 3:1-7)

ChatGPT Poe

In the passage you provided from Genesis 3:1-7, the devil, portrayed as the serpent, employs several tactics to deceive and tempt Eve. Let's analyze the tactics and their psychological aspects:

Questioning and Distorting God's Word: The serpent begins by questioning God's command and distorting it. By asking, "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" the serpent subtly plants doubt and misrepresents God's instructions. This tactic aims to undermine Eve's trust in God's authority and create confusion.

Denying Consequences: The serpent contradicts God's warning of death, saying, "Ye shall not surely die." By denying the consequences of disobedience, the devil seeks to minimize the seriousness of the act and deceive Eve into believing that disobedience will not bring negative outcomes.

Appeal to Self-Interest and Desire: The serpent appeals to Eve's desires by suggesting that eating the forbidden fruit will make her wise and like a god. This tactic plays on human curiosity, ambition, and the desire for power and knowledge. It creates a sense of self-importance and entices Eve to prioritize her own desires over obedience to God.

Observation and Manipulation: The serpent highlights the visual appeal of the fruit, saying that it was good for food and pleasant to the eyes. By emphasizing these physical attributes, the serpent manipulates Eve's senses and influences her decision-making.

Influence through Social Dynamics: Eve's decision to eat the fruit and share it with Adam may also be influenced by social dynamics and the desire to please others. Seeing that the fruit was desirable, Eve may have felt compelled to conform or to share the experience with Adam.

These psychological tactics employed by the devil in the story aim to exploit human vulnerabilities, such as curiosity, self-interest, and the desire for knowledge and power. By distorting truth, appealing to desires, manipulating perceptions, and leveraging social dynamics, the devil successfully tempts Eve into disobeying God's command.

Good, but you failed to see why the devil would do this, and that the devil appealed the the human's strong innate sense of justice, whereby he inferred that she was being selfishly deprived by God of an attribute of deity due to being forbidden to eat of that enlightening fruit, and thus she was a victim of injustice, and thus she would be justified in consuming it, out of self-interest.

ChatGPT Poe

Thank you for your additional insight. You are correct that the devil's tactic in appealing to the innate sense of justice is an important aspect to consider. By suggesting that God was unjustly withholding knowledge and power from Eve by forbidding her to eat the fruit, the devil sought to create a sense of perceived injustice and victimhood. This tactic aimed to manipulate Eve's perception of her situation, making her more inclined to act out of self-interest and seek what she believed she deserved.

By framing the situation as an unjust restriction placed upon Eve, the devil aimed to foster a feeling of entitlement and a desire for autonomy. This appeal to justice, combined with the allure of acquiring wisdom and god-like attributes, further enticed Eve to prioritize her own desires over obedience to God's command.

Understanding the psychological tactics employed by the devil, including the appeal to innate senses of justice and self-interest, provides insights into the complexities of human decision-making and vulnerability to manipulation. It serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of discernment and resisting temptations that exploit our innate desires.

Quite astute. Do you see the same psychological tactic basically being employed by persons seeking political power, by inculcating a victim entitlement mentality among classes, by focusing and magnifying (and or imagining) injustices done to them, whereby the political entities obtain power by promising deliverance, to obtain them their due (at the expense of others of who provide income, who are portrayed as oppressors), yet the "victim" do not end up better off overall. Can you think of any historical figures or movements that basically correspond to this description?

ChatGPT Poe

Yes, the tactic you described of inculcating a victim entitlement mentality, magnifying perceived injustices, and promising deliverance in order to gain political power has been observed throughout history. Several historical figures and movements can be identified as fitting this description. Here are a few examples:

Populist movements: Populist leaders often tap into the grievances and frustrations of certain groups and portray them as victims of an elite or oppressive establishment. They promise to fight for the rights and interests of the common people, presenting themselves as their champion. Examples of populist movements include leaders like Juan Perón in Argentina, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, and more recently, some political movements in various countries around the world.

Nationalist movements: Nationalist leaders sometimes use a similar approach, emphasizing a sense of victimhood or perceived historical injustices inflicted on their nation or ethnic group. They rally support by promising to restore power, pride, and prosperity to their people. Historical figures like Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany and Benito Mussolini in Fascist Italy used nationalist narratives to gain power and control.

Communist movements: Communist revolutions and movements have often framed the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie as a fight for justice and equality. They portray the working class as victims of exploitation, promising to create a fairer society by redistributing wealth and power. Examples include figures like Vladimir Lenin in the Russian Revolution and Mao Zedong in the Chinese Communist Revolution.

It's important to note that while these movements may initially gain support by appealing to a sense of victimhood and promising change, the outcomes and impact on society can vary greatly. Some movements have brought about positive changes, while others have led to authoritarian regimes or worsened socio-economic conditions. Each historical context is complex, and it's important to consider multiple factors when analyzing these movements and their consequences.

Pretty good, but I forgot to add that in contrast to Jesus Christ, who sacrificially worked to delivered the oppressed, and to provide redemption solely on His own expense, and required and enabled moral and productive betterment, the aforementioned political power seekers usually are overall selfish, besides immoral, and keep their voting base much in the same condition there were in before. And 'By their fruit you will know them."

ChatGPT Poe

Thank you for highlighting the contrast between the approach of Jesus Christ and some political power seekers. Indeed, Jesus Christ is often depicted as a selfless figure who worked to deliver the oppressed and provide redemption through his sacrificial actions. His teachings emphasized moral values and personal transformation.

In contrast, some political power seekers may prioritize their own interests and maintain their voting base in a dependent or disadvantaged condition rather than promoting genuine improvement. This can be seen as a manipulation tactic to secure their own power and control. The quote "By their fruit, you will know them" from the Bible (Matthew 7:20) encourages evaluating individuals or movements based on their actions and outcomes rather than their words or promises alone.

Examining the impact and results of political movements and leaders is essential in understanding their true intentions and their commitment to the betterment of society. It's important to assess whether their actions align with their stated goals and whether they genuinely empower and uplift those they claim to represent.

Good analysis. Thanks

You're welcome! I'm glad you found the analysis helpful. If you have any more questions or need further assistance, feel free to ask.

Operated by Poe @poe 113K followers New chat Powered by gpt-3.5-turbo.

This bot is powered by OpenAI. Learn more See all chats with this bot

Response based on a Quora (deleted) post: I’m currently in the middle of the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate....Being pro-choice, why are you one and what’s the scientific evidence that defends your arguments?

Question in Quora.com  I’m currently in the middle of the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate....Being pro-choice, why are you one and what’s the scientific evidence that defends your arguments?  

 As expressed in a comment and somewhat revised here, the premise behind the typical justificatory arguments for abortion (“respecting individual autonomy and the right to make decisions about one's own body,” “negative consequences on public health,” “the freedom to choose what's best for them”) is that the unborn at any time of abortion is not a human person, even though it will be rather quickly very manifest to be one indeed.

Even if someone you invited into your car or house secretly brings a child with them without your consent, then you simply do not have the right to exterminate that life, which is not a lethal threat to you. In some states, you cannot even shoot suspected burglars unless they manifestly endanger lives, much less a lost vulnerable child who finds a way into your house since you left the door open.

And even more unjustifiable is to kill a child resulting from your choice to engage in a behavior which most naturally produces offspring.

And 98% of abortions are due to reasons other than rape, incest:

And a study of approx. 64,000 out of 3,664,000 births in 2021 found that only 1.7% may be due to ectopic pregnancies, and with a total of approx 4% being due to health reasons:

"Risk to the woman’s life or a major bodily function: 0.2%[6] Other physical health concerns: 2.5%[7] Abnormality in the unborn baby: 1.3%[8] - Fact Sheet: Reasons for Abortion - Lozier Institute (and accommodating doctors can use "Other physical health concerns" liberally).

So in order to justify the “pro-choice” position - which is denying the subject of extermination any choice in the matter, and is contrary to the normal course of nature - then one must deny that what is inside the womb is a human person (unless pro-choice promoters are willing to be classed as murderers, which they are).

And thus the pro anti-infant choice promoter must justify their basis for determining that.

Will it be the ability to function on its own, though it rather shortly will be able to? If so, then you had best not be laid up for a while if needing life-sustaining support.

And of course, most aged in nursing homes could thus be turned into sources of protein.

Will it be based upon location, meaning outside the womb killing the infant would be murder, but before that it is open game?

Or will the unborn human life be valued at least as much as protected migratory birds are, for due to the procreating nature of the egg of a protected migratory bird and the value placed upon it, then crushing the life of such is outlawed.

The fact is that, as a 1.6 birth rate testifies, children overall are increasingly not desired nor seen as needed, or at least not if they require much sacrifice, while typically spoiling the one or maybe two children parents have on average, and with children being often replaced by pets, which are seen as more worthy of care and cost.

Meanwhile, fornication costs the country greatly.

Biblically, and as a Christian, you either live a celibate, continent life in devotion and service to God and to others, (1 Corinthians 7:32–34) or you prayerfully marry an eligible spouse of the opposite sex, for life. And together, in joint devotion to God and His word, you have all the children God will give you, with temperance being the only birth control. (Genesis 1:28; Psalms 127:3; Psalms 128:3–5; 1 Corinthians 9:25)

And in which stable family the children usually have a few siblings, with whom, as with parents, they can learn to share, communicate, resolve conflicts, and delay gratification, and overcome difficulties, thus better preparing them for life in this world.

And for service in which God will reward in the next, by His grace, for those who effectually believe on the Lord of all, in addition to salvation which is a pure gift, on God/Christ’s expense, by His sinless shed blood, and to His glory.

     The following are responses made by a liberal Quora poster (which began in response to my original reproof of her), a one Amy Gorin (in red italics). May God have mercy on her in enabling her to see her need for salvation thru the risen 
Lord Jesus, the giver of life. 

 Here's your real problem Daniel. You don't understand the difference between trespassing and rape.

Women aren't buildings or cars. Women are people. And using a *person’s body* without their consent is rape, not trespassing.

Every time you use the trespassing analogy, you are admitting that you don't see women as people.

Daniel Hamilton · Oct 23 Here's real problem here in your attempted deflection, Amy. you still don't understand the difference between unlawful trespassing versus some lost vulnerable child innocently ending up on your property, and thus how they are not to be killed, nor btwn rape victims (which approx 1% I never mentioned), versus a child being in your body DUE to your choices/actions of consensual sexual relation - despite knowing the risks! (

And [it is] who you justify killing.

And rather than me admitting that you don't see women as people (due to your limited idea of analogy), it remains that it is You who refuses to see the unborn as people, which you desperately attempt to justify murdering.

Again, I think it is best to just give this up. The more you attempt to defend your infanticide here, then the more it becomes an argument against it.

However, let me say that I am not angry at you, though I do contend against your arguments. And may God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” ((2 Timothy 2:25)

 .Oct 23 It doesn’t matter if the entry is “unlawful” or if it’s a “ lost vulnerable child.” Women are still people, not buildings, and I still don’t have to “justify” a person’s right to not have their body used without their consent. Even if she had consensual sex. Even if someone will die.

You’re responding to the arguments you’ve memorized, not to the things I’m actually saying.

 Profile photo for Daniel Hamilton Daniel Hamilton · Oct 23 Now this is becoming irrational. How can you compare a child living within her body, due to her choices - and without the consent of the occupant - knowing of the risk of pregnancy, with someone who uses her body without her consent, as if this was like a case of being bought as a slave? “Property rights?”

Her “consent” was that of engaging in an activity knowing the risk, and she has no justification for making herself out to be a victim and murdering the actual “victim.”

I ask you for photos of your foster children and organ donation scars, and instead you give me quotes from your bible. That really says it all.

I never knew what photos you referred to, but I no longer have receipts toward the support of foster children, though I provide free repair work for bikes, and dispense food (pregnant women may go first) , and I at 71 I am willing to risk my life today to save my neighbors, But I would not murder my organs which are to be used for good.

Yet even if your attempted deflection of assigning a hypocrite label to me worked, for that also fails to prevail as justification for murdering the child in a mother's wombs, which is due to her consent to couple with another person, who was once in a womb himself, and shares responsibility of support.

Finally, I actually only provided one quote from the Bible you also murder, which is more than any justification for murder that you have or can provide. And which responses I am saving, perhaps to post elsewhere, properly attributed. Thanks.

But I would still fix your bike, etc.

 Oct 23 People have the right to not be pregnant without consent. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Even if someone will die. But you are certainly to be lauded for providing food to the needy.

“Finally, I actually only provided one quote from the Bible you also murder, which is more than any justification for murder that you have or can provide”

I have no idea what this means.

Profile photo for Daniel Hamilton Daniel Hamilton · Oct 23 Which is the same old refuted polemic you tried before, which is no more valid than it was then.

People do not have the right to not realize consequences of actions they consented to. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, but it is consent to the risk of pregnancy. and moral responsibility to such is to be consented to. . Especially if someone will die. For no one has the right to escape responsibility for the consequences of actions they chose, which risk they choose to take.

And when the consequences involve life, then responsibility does not mean taking innocent life, but caring for it.

And thus it remains that the one quote from the Bible is more (in number) than any justification for murder that you have or can provide.

In conclusion, while I affirm both the unborn and the mother as human persons, and who thus are to be respected, cared for, etc. and with rights to such.

But as such, then insomuch as they are morally cognizant and capable, then such are responsible for consequences of their volitional actions.

And since the unborn are not morally responsible for their conception, location, nor needs, but are (in the cases at issue) the result of persons choosing to engage in actions, knowing of the risks, then they are not victims, but perpetrators, which are morally responsible for the care of the unborn, which is the “victim” party.

In addition, even though you do not like analogies which works against you via correspondence of principles, just as in the case of a lost vulnerable innocent child who seeks finds shelter in your house the door being opened, then you are obliged to provide care for such until another can. Even if you did not invite them.

For children of any age are not cars.

But again, may God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:25)

Good bye. 

Misc. posts, with research, regarding Israel and Palestinians

Misc. posts, with research (and a little subsequent editing, and subject to correction), regarding Israel and Palestinians (and see end) [some is redundant, and I hope all is accurate]

“Over 4,000 years ago, there were small tribes living in Canaan, such as Moabites, Amalekites, etc. There was no Palestine of people or land. Then around 3,200 years ago, the 12 tribes of Israel, united under King Saul into the first kingdom in the region, a Jewish theocracy called “Israel.” That split into the kingdoms of Judah and Israel (both Jewish), which were conquered by the Babylonian empire a little over 2,500 years ago. This became the Persian Empire, which was defeated by Alexander the Great, and Israel was controlled by the Greeks.

The Greeks were defeated by the Hasmoneans, and Israel once again became a Jewish state about 2,200 years ago. The Hasmoneans were beaten by the Romans, and there followed a series of kingdoms that controlled Israel: Byzantine, Sassanid, Ummayad, Frankish, Christian, and eventually the Mamluk Dynasty, which controlled the region in the 13th-16th centuries. This is the first time there is a governmental Muslim presence in Israel, but again, it is not related to Palestine as a people or nation at all. The Mamluks ultimately were absorbed into the Ottoman Empire, which controlled the region until it was defeated by the British in the 20th century. Nowhere in this 3,000-year history does Palestine or Palestinians exist or even get discussed. The British created a mandate called “Palestine” on July 24, 1922, which was the first mention of the word in thousands of years.” - https://pjmedia.com/rabbi-michael-barclay/2023/10/14/there-is-no-such-thing-as-palestinians-n1735136

Wikipedia informs (which is only as good as its references, which the good OP article lacks) The term "Palestine" first appeared in the 5th century BCE when the ancient Greek historian Herodotus wrote of a "district of Syria, called Palaistinê" between Phoenicia and Egypt in The Histories.[7] Herodotus provides the first historical reference clearly denoting a wider region than biblical Philistia, as he applied the term to both the coastal and the inland regions such as the Judean Mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley.[8][9][10][11] Later Greek writers such as Aristotle, Polemon and Pausanias also used the word, which was followed by Roman writers such as Ovid, Tibullus, Pomponius Mela, Pliny the Elder, Dio Chrysostom, Statius, Plutarch as well as Roman Judean writers Philo of Alexandria and Josephus.[12] There is not currently evidence of the name on any Hellenistic coin or inscription.[13]

In the early 2nd century CE, the term "Syria Palaestina"[a] (literally, "Palestinian Syria"[14][15]) was given to the Roman province of Judaea either before or after the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_Palestine

I add that what the radical Left charges is that Israel is an illegal occupier (which seems to at least be inferred by the two-state advocates, including Putin), denying them full ownership of their historical land (which was mostly cleansed of a very wicked nation, and later lost to conquerors due to Israel's infidelity to God, but from what I see, thru a succession of conquerors part of their land was given back to the Jews, who then gained more of it (whole giving back almost all the land it controlled after Islamic wars) due to the militant intolerance of Muslims to a Jewish state. Who had no historical right to their militant intolerance to the Jewish state.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Israel has rejected Palestinian demands for a return of refugees as part of a peace deal, arguing that it would threaten the country’s Jewish majority." [Associated Press]

What the liberal AP does not tell its readers (who are mostly headline readers on Smart Phones) is that

The Palestinian right of return is the political position or principle that Palestinian refugees, both first-generation refugees (c. 30,000 to 50,000 people still alive as of 2012)[3][4] and their descendants (c. 5 million people as of 2012),[3] have a right to return, and a right to the property they themselves or their forebears left behind or were forced to leave in what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine provided for only 62% of the land allocated to the Jewish state," [while] The land allocated to the Arab State in the final plan included about 43% of Mandatory Palestine and consisted of all of the highlands, except for Jerusalem, plus one-third of the coastline. The highlands contain the major aquifers of Palestine, which supplied water to the coastal cities of central Palestine, including Tel Aviv. The Jewish State allocated to the Jews, who constituted a third of the population and owned about 7% of the land, was to receive 56% of Mandatory Palestine, a slightly larger area to accommodate the increasing numbers of Jews who would immigrate there. The Jewish State included three fertile lowland plains – the Sharon on the coast, the Jezreel Valley and the upper Jordan Valley. The bulk of the proposed Jewish State's territory, however, consisted of the Negev Desert,[56] which was not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development at that time. The Jewish State would also be given sole access to the Sea of Galilee, crucial for its water supply, and the economically important Red Sea.

"the proposed Arab State would include the central and part of western Galilee, with the town of Acre, the hill country of Samaria and Judea, an enclave at Jaffa, and the southern coast stretching from north of Isdud (now Ashdod) and encompassing what is now the Gaza Strip, with a section of desert along the Egyptian border. " "According to the plan, Jews and Arabs living in the Jewish state would become citizens of the Jewish state and Jews and Arabs living in the Arab state would become citizens of the Arab state."

By virtue of Chapter 3, Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, resided in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem would, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they were resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.

Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated that they would reject any other plan of partition.[9] The Arab states' delegations declared immediately after the vote for partition that they would not be bound by the decision, and walked out accompanied by the Indian and Pakistani delegates.[116]...n 16 February 1948, the UN Palestine Commission reported to the Security Council that: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."

Azzam told Alec Kirkbride "We will sweep them [the Jews] into the sea." Syrian president Shukri al-Quwatli told his people: "We shall eradicate Zionism."[121] King Farouk of Egypt told the American ambassador to Egypt that in the long run the Arabs would soundly defeat the Jews and drive them out of Palestine.[ - https://en.wikipedia.org

What the Left charges is that Israel is an illegal occupier (which seems to at least be inferred by the two-state advocates, including Putin), yet there never was a Palestinian state, and the Jews regaining their homeland was a result of being conquered by "occupiers," and who (from what I see) themselves were conquered (due to disobedience to God) , and thru a succession of which the Jewish state by born within their homeland, yet there remaineth yet more land to be possessed from present occupants.

Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank. - https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-claim-to-the-land-of-israel

"This map [below] shows modern Israel compared to what ancient Israel actually looked like at some point. The land God called Joshua to take was much larger."

"The big difference is that the West Bank, as well as the eastern side of the Jordan River, is not part of modern Israel."

Source: https://www.quora.com/How-does-modern-day-Israel-compare-to-the-conquered-lands-as-described-in-the-book-of-Joshua-Old-Testament/answer Steve-Page-96

For many more maps: http://www.jewishwikipedia.info/israelmaps.html

Map below showing the status of Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories as of 2018:

The Jews regaining much of their ancient homeland and and statehood after approx 2500 years of not possessing it, losing it to different conquers/occupiers, and with dispersals, is unique, and providential, glory to God who shall yet manifestly answer this question:

ISRAEL: CHOSEN OR FORGOTTEN?

Next: The Status of Arabs in Israel

10/11/2023, 10:45:19 AM · 5 of 11
daniel1212 to daniel1212

Rather than being unjust occupiers of "Palestinian" land, under overt supernatural attestation of Divine command, the Jews conquered a generationally wicked nation group due to being evil, exterminating most (though DNA finds more than 90 percent of the genetic ancestry of modern Lebanese being derived from ancient Canaanites, yet genes are not the same as culture, which can radically evolve over the years while genes can remain unchanged), due to disobedience, the Jews lost their historical land to conquerors, and via a succession of which they received most their land back, but not all that was promised them.

Excerpts of research:

Israel existed as a Monarchy under the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon, yet due to disobedience the country later split into two separate kingdoms: Israel (Ephraim) and Judah. The Northern Kingdom of Israel was destroyed around 720 BCE, being conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Later, Jewish revolts against the Babylonians led to the destruction of Judah in 586 BCE, under king Nebuchadnezzar II.

Neo-Assyrian Empire grew to dominate the ancient Near East throughout much of the 8th and 7th centuries BC and ruled over all of Mesopotamia, the Levant and Egypt, as well as parts of Anatolia, Arabia and modern-day Iran and Armenia.

 Despite being at the peak of its power, the empire experienced a swift and violent fall in the late 7th century BC, destroyed by a Babylonian uprising and an invasion by the Medes, an ancient Iranian people who inhabited an area known as Media between western and northern Iran. In the 7th century BC, all of western Iran and some other territories were under Median rule, but their precise geographic extent remains unknown.[4]

After the fall of Assyria between 616 BC and 609 BC, a unified Median state was formed, which together with Babylonia, Lydia, and ancient Egypt became one of the four major powers of the ancient Near East. After Cyrus's victory against Astyages, the Medes were subjected to their close kin, the Persians.[

From the early 6th century BC onwards, several Persian states dominated the region, beginning with the Medes and non-Persian Neo-Babylonian Empire, then their successor the Achaemenid Empire known as the first Persian Empire, conquered in the late 4th century BC by the very short-lived Macedonian Empire of Alexander the Great, and then successor kingdoms such as Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid state in Western Asia.

After a century of hiatus, the idea of the Persian Empire was revived by the Parthians in the 3rd century BC—and continued by their successors, the Sassanids from the 3rd century AD. This empire dominated sizable parts of what is now the Asian part of the Middle East and continued to influence the rest of the Asiatic and African Middle East region, until the Arab Muslim conquest of Persia in the mid-7th century AD. Between the 1st century BC and the early 7th century AD, the region was completely dominated by the Romans and the Parthians and Sassanids on the other hand, which often culminated in various Roman-Persian Wars over the seven centuries. Eastern Rite, Church of the East Christianity took hold in Persian-ruled Mesopotamia, particularly in Assyria from the 1st century AD onwards, and the region became a center of a flourishing Syriac–Assyrian literary tradition.

Greek and Roman Empire. In 66–63 BC, the Roman general Pompey conquered much of the Middle East.[21] The Roman Empire united the region with most of Europe and North Africa in a single political and economic unit. Even areas not directly annexed were strongly influenced by the Empire, which was the most powerful political and cultural entity for centuries. Though Roman culture spread across the region, the Greek culture and language first established in the region by the Macedonian Empire continued to dominate throughout the Roman period.

As the Christian religion spread throughout the Roman and Persian Empires, it took root in the Middle East, and cities such as Alexandria and Edessa became important centers of Christian scholarship. By the 5th century, Christianity was the dominant religion in the Middle East, with other faiths (gradually including heretical Christian sects) being actively repressed. The Middle East's ties to the city of Rome were gradually severed as the Empire split into East and West, with the Middle East tied to the new Roman capital of Constantinople. The subsequent Fall of the Western Roman Empire therefore, had minimal direct impact on the region.

Byzantine Empire The Eastern Roman Empire, today commonly known as the Byzantine Empire, ruling from the Balkans to the Euphrates, became increasingly defined by and dogmatic about Christianity, gradually creating religious rifts between the doctrines dictated by the establishment in Constantinople and believers in many parts of the Middle East. By this time, Greek had become the 'lingua franca' of the region, although ethnicities such as the Syriacs and the Hebrew continued to exist. Under Byzantine/Greek rule the area of the Levant met an era of stability and prosperity.

In the 5th century, the Middle East was separated into small, weak states; the two most prominent were the Sasanian Empire of the Persians in what is now Iran and Iraq, and the Byzantine Empire in Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) and the Levant. The Byzantines and Sasanians fought with each other a reflection of the rivalry between the Roman Empire and the Persian Empire seen during the previous five hundred years. The Byzantine-Sasanian rivalry was also seen through their respective cultures and religions. The Byzantines considered themselves champions of Hellenism and Christianity. Meanwhile, the Sasanians thought themselves heroes of ancient Iranian traditions and of the traditional Persian religion, Zoroastrianism.

Territorial wars soon became common, with the Byzantines and Sasanians fighting over upper Mesopotamia and Armenia and key cities that facilitated trade from Arabia, India, and China.[27] Byzantium, as the continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire, continued control of the latter's territories in the Middle East. Since 527, this included Anatolia, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Egypt. But in 603 the Sasanians invaded, conquering Damascus and Egypt. It was Emperor Heraclius who was able to repel these invasions, and in 628 he replaced the Sasanian Great King with a more docile one. But the fighting weakened both states, leaving the stage open to a new power.

The nomadic Bedouin tribes dominated the Arabian desert, where they worshiped idols and remained in small clans tied together by kinship. Urbanization and agriculture was limited in Arabia, save for a few regions near the coast. Mecca and Medina (then called Yathrib) were two such cities that were important hubs for trade between Africa and Eurasia.

While the Byzantine Roman and Sassanid Persian empires were both weakened by warfare (602–628), a new power in the form of Islam grew in the Middle East. In a series of rapid Muslim conquests, Arab armies, led by the Caliphs and skilled military commanders such as Khalid ibn al-Walid, swept through most of the Middle East, taking more than half of Byzantine territory and completely engulfing the Persian lands. In Anatolia, they were stopped in the Siege of Constantinople (717–718) by the Byzantines, who were helped by the Bulgarians.

The Byzantine provinces of Roman Syria, North Africa, and Sicily, however, could not mount such a resistance, and the Muslim conquerors swept through those regions. At the far west, they crossed the sea taking Visigothic Hispania before being halted in southern France in the Battle of Tours by the Franks. At its greatest extent, the Arab Empire was the first empire to control the entire Middle East, as well three-quarters of the Mediterranean region, the only other empire besides the Roman Empire to control most of the Mediterranean Sea.[32] It would be the Arab Caliphates of the Middle Ages that would first unify the entire Middle East as a distinct region and create the dominant ethnic identity that persists today.

Much of North Africa became a peripheral area to the main Muslim centres in the Middle East, but Iberia (Al-Andalus) and Morocco soon broke away from this distant control and founded one of the world's most advanced societies at the time, along with Baghdad in the eastern Mediterranean. Between 831 and 1071, the Emirate of Sicily was one of the major centres of Islamic culture in the Mediterranean. After its conquest by the Normans the island developed its own distinct culture with the fusion of Arab, Western, and Byzantine influences.

Motivated by religion and conquest, the kings of Europe launched a number of Crusades to try to roll back Muslim power and retake the Holy Land. The Crusades were unsuccessful but were far more effective in weakening the already tottering Byzantine Empire. They also rearranged the balance of power in the Muslim world as Egypt once again emerged as a major power.

The dominance of the Arabs came to a sudden end in the mid-11th century with the arrival of the Seljuq Turks, migrating south from the Turkic homelands in Central Asia. They conquered Persia, Iraq (capturing Baghdad in 1055), Syria, Palestine, and the Hejaz. Egypt held out under the Fatimid caliphs until 1169, when it too fell to the Turks.

Despite massive territorial losses in the 7th century, the Christian Byzantine Empire continued to be a potent military and economic force in the Mediterranean, preventing Arab expansion into much of Europe. The Seljuqs' defeat of the Byzantine military in the Battle of Manzikert in the 11th century and settling in Anatolia effectively marked the end of Byzantine power. The Seljuks ruled most of the Middle East region for the next 200 years, but their empire soon broke up into a number of smaller sultanates.

Christian Western Europe staged a remarkable economic and demographic recovery in the 11th century since its nadir in the 7th century. The fragmentation of the Middle East allowed joined forces, mainly from England, France, and the emerging Holy Roman Empire, to enter the region. In 1095, Pope Urban II responded to pleas from the flagging Byzantine Empire and summoned the European aristocracy to recapture the Holy Land for Christianity. In 1099 the knights of the First Crusade captured Jerusalem and founded the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which survived until 1187, when Saladin, the founder of the Ayyubid dynasty, retook the city. Smaller crusader kingdoms and fiefdoms survived until 1291.

Mongol rule... societal clashing occurred between traditionalists who wished to retain their nomadic culture and Mongols moving towards sedentary agriculture. All of this led to the fragmentation of the empire in 1260.

The Mongols eventually retreated in 1335, but the chaos that ensued throughout the empire deposed the Seljuq Turks. In 1401, the region was further plagued by the Turko-Mongol, Timur, and his ferocious raids. By then, another group of Turks had arisen as well, the Ottomans. Based in Anatolia, by 1566 they would conquer the Iraq-Iran region, the Balkans, Greece, Byzantium, most of Egypt, most of north Africa, and parts of Arabia, unifying them under the Ottoman Empire. The rule of the Ottoman sultans marked the end of the Medieval (Postclassical) Era in the Middle East.

The Ottoman Empire (1299–1918)..The Ottomans united the whole region under one ruler for the first time since the reign of the Abbasid caliphs of the 10th century, and they kept control of it for 400 years, despite brief intermissions created by the Iranian Safavids and Afsharids.[38] By this time the Ottomans also held Greece, the Balkans, and most of Hungary, setting the new frontier between east and west far to the north of the Danube. Regions such as Albania and Bosnia saw many conversions to Islam, but Ottoman Europe was not culturally absorbed into the Muslim world.

By 1699, the Ottomans had been driven out of Hungary, Poland-Lithuania and parts of the western Balkans in the Great Turkish War. In the Great Divergence, Europe had overtaken the Muslim world in wealth, population and technology.

The industrial revolution and growth of capitalism magnified the divergence, and from 1768 to 1918, the Ottomans gradually lost territory. Greece, Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria achieved independence during the 19th century, and the Ottoman Empire became known as the "sick man of Europe", increasingly under the financial control of European powers. Domination soon turned to outright conquest: the French annexed Algeria in 1830 and Tunisia in 1878 and the British occupied Egypt in 1882, though it remained under nominal Ottoman sovereignty. In the Balkan Wars of 1912–13 the Ottomans were driven out of Europe altogether, except for the city of Constantinople and its hinterland.

The British also established effective control of the Persian Gulf, and the French extended their influence into Lebanon and Syria. In 1912, the Italians seized Libya and the Dodecanese islands, just off the coast of the Ottoman heartland of Anatolia. The Ottomans turned to Germany to protect them from the western powers, but the result was increasing financial and military dependence on Germany... Enver Bey's alliance with Germany, which he considered the most advanced military power in Europe, was enabled by British demands that the Ottoman Empire cede their formal capital Edirne (Adrianople) to the Bulgarians after losing the First Balkan War, which the Turks saw as a betrayal by Britain.

The British saw the Ottomans as the weak link in the enemy alliance, and concentrated on knocking them out of the war. When a direct assault failed at Gallipoli in 1916, they turned to fomenting revolution in the Ottoman domains, exploiting the awakening force of Arab, Armenian, and Assyrian nationalism against the Ottomans. The British found an ally in Sharif Hussein, the hereditary ruler of Mecca believed by many to be a descendant of Muhammad, who led an Arab Revolt against Ottoman rule, after being promised independence. .

The Entente, won the war and the Ottoman Empire was abolished with most of its territories ceded to Britain and France; Turkey just managed to survive.The war transformed the region in terms of shattering Ottoman power which was supplanted by increased British and French involvement; the creation of the Middle Eastern state system as seen in Turkey and Saudi Arabia; the emergence of explicitly more nationalist politics, as seen in Turkey and Egypt; and the expansion of oil industry, particularly in the Gulf States.

When the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allies in 1918, the Arab patriots did not get what they had expected. Islamic activists of more recent times have described it as an Anglo-French betrayal. The governments of the European Entente had concluded a secret treaty before the armistice, the Sykes–Picot Agreement, between the United Kingdom and France, with assent from the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Italy, to define their mutually agreed spheres of influence and control in an eventual partition of the Ottoman Empire.

The agreement was based on the premise that the Triple Entente would achieve success in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I and formed part of a series of secret agreements contemplating its partition. The agreement allocated to the UK control of what is today southern Israel and Palestine, Jordan and southern Iraq, and an additional small area that included the ports of Haifa and Acre to allow access to the Mediterranean. France was to control southeastern Turkey, the Kurdistan Region, Syria and Lebanon.

As a result of the included Sazonov–Paléologue Agreement, Russia was to get Western Armenia in addition to Constantinople and the Turkish Straits already promised under the 1915 Constantinople Agreement. Italy assented to the agreement in 1917 via the Agreement of Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne and received southern Anatolia.[8] The Palestine region, with a smaller area than the later Mandatory Palestine, was to fall under an "international administration".

Syria became a French protectorate as a League of Nations mandate. The Christian coastal areas were split off to become Lebanon, another French protectorate. Iraq and Palestine became British mandated territories. Iraq became the "Kingdom of Iraq" and one of Sharif Hussein's sons, Faisal, was installed as the King of Iraq. Iraq incorporated large populations of Kurds, Assyrians and Turkmens, many of whom had been promised independent states of their own.

The British had in 1917, endorsed the Balfour Declaration promising the international Zionist movement their support in re-creating the historic Jewish homeland in Palestine. Britain was granted a Mandate for Palestine on 25 April 1920 at the San Remo Conference, and, on 24 July 1922, this mandate was approved by the League of Nations. Palestine became the "British Mandate of Palestine" and was placed under direct British administration. The Jewish population of Palestine, consisting overwhelmingly of recent migrants from Europe, numbered less than 8 percent in 1918. Under the British mandate, Zionist settlers were granted wide rein to immigrate initially, buy land from absentee landlords, set up a local government and later establish the nucleus of a state all under the protection of the British Army, which brutally suppressed multiple Palestinian Arab revolts in the years that followed, including in 1936

The Territory East of the Jordan River and west of Iraq was also declared a British Mandate when the Council of the League of Nations passed the British written Transjordan Memorandum on 16 September 1922. Most of the Arabian peninsula, including the Holy cities of Mecca and Medina, though not incorporated into either a British or French colonial mandate, fell under the control of another British ally, Ibn Saud, who in 1932, founded the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Middle_East; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Eastern_empires; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

Again, rather than being unjust occupiers of "Palestinian" land, in contrast to Muhammad and Islamic Wars of Conquest and Islam, the commands for Joshua's wars of conquest were after God made it incontrovertibly supernaturally manifest that He was real and commanding them to cleanse the land of a generationally terminally wicked people, which would prevent  further  spread of this.    

Later, due to disobedience, the Jews lost their historical land to conquerors, yet with  a remnant of Jews always being present, along  with Arabs  later Muslims,  albeit with some Canaanite DNA, with no legal title to the land occupied, such as allocated by a government) and via a succession of which they received most their land back, but not all that was promised them. From what I see, the people latter called "Palestinian" may be  due to Israel's failure to utterly drive out the Canaanites, and who could have later had their own state, along with the Jewsbut rejected the US partition plan.

When Jews began to immigrate to Palestine in large numbers in 1882, fewer than 250,000 Arabs lived there, and the majority of them had arrived in recent decades. Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not." In fact, Palestine is never explicitly mentioned in the Koran, rather it is called "the holy land" (al-Arad al-Muqaddash).

Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:

We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.

In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."... 

Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank. - https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-claim-to-the-land-of-israel

Yet may they, as with Jews, find peace and fellowship thru the risen Lord Jesus which both religions deny.

As for the poverty of Gaza, one  should not  be ignorant of the political purposes behind the "plight of the Palestinians" - which is a result of the Islamic 1948 intolerance of the Jews which Muslims sought to expel since 1948. Whereby some non-supporters of HAMAS are victims the the Islamic refusal to allow Palestinians to become citizens in their country (aside from Jordan), for political purposes. Jordan, and Syria.

Israel comprises just 0.2 percent of the Middle East’s land mass while Arabs of today controls 24 nations... 9 9½ percent of the ENTIRE Middle East land mass, and Muslims of most surrounding nations have sought to kill or expel push the Jews from their ancient national homeland even before as well as after 1947, when Muslims, which came to be called Palestinians - a name cognate with the Biblical Hebrew Pəlīštīm and used for the land of the Hebrews from at least 450 BC (Herodotus) while the residents of Judea and Samaria were considered Jordanians before 1948, including by themselves - rejected the UN Partition Plan which would have established independent Jewish and Arab states and an international control of Jerusalem. Before that, under the 1922 international mandate the British were to help the Jews reestablish their homeland in the territory.

The Muslims would not tolerated the existence of the State of Israel in 1948 since the Arab community was still seeking to control the entirety of the Palestine Mandate itself, thus five Arab armies attacked Israel when it declared independence. Only to henceforth cry victim when they lost this war and subsequent attempts to drive Israel into the sea as it were.

As a distinct people Palestinians never were a nation before 1948 (and only a quasi-state from 1988)  while about 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs, mostly Muslims, with only 14% identifying as Palestinians, and live in homes they either own or rent, and are not required to perform mandatory military service. They have equal voting rights and Arabs currently hold 9 seats in the 120-seat Knesset and have also held various government posts, including one who served as Israel’s ambassador to Finland and the current deputy mayor of Tel Aviv. ( Myths & Facts Online - Human Rights in Israel and the Territories) And see The Real Reason Arabs in Israel Do Not Want to Live in 'Palestine'

Meanwhile, most Arab nations resist Palestinians immigration and refuse citizenship to them, due to their warring nature, being a destabilizing factor in both Israel and other nations, and for political purposes.

However, despite tiny Israel attempting to live in peaceful co-existence with its surrounding Muslim neighbors, even giving up almost all the land is conquered in victory over Muslim attempts to exterminate them, it is threatened and attacked by such, thus resulting in defensive actions which are invoked by liberals as unwarranted aggression, but which are warranted.

And while I am sure Israel has engaged in some wrong actions, and some discrimination exists, and is far from perfect tenants - including allowing “gay” parades,” they are the victims of unjust aggression by other nations.

...some ask why neighboring Egypt and Jordan don’t take them in.... The two countries, which flank Israel on opposite sides and share borders with Gaza and the occupied West Bank, respectively, have replied with a staunch refusal. Jordan already has a large Palestinian population. Jordan’s King Abdullah II gave a similar message a day earlier, saying, “No refugees in Jordan, no refugees in Egypt.” Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi...warned of an even more destabilizing scenario: the wrecking of Egypt and Israel’s 1979 peace deal. He said that with the presence of Palestinian militants, Sinai “would become a base for attacks on Israel. Israel would have the right to defend itself ... and would strike Egyptian territory.” https://apnews.com/article/palestinian-jordan-egypt-israel-refugee-502c06d004767d4b64848d878b66bd3d

And as for the GDP of Gaza, what do you think this would be if the were Chinese and lived peacefully with Israel? Meanwhile,

Hamas spends $100 million a year on military infrastructure.Khatib)... As the residents of the Gaza Strip endure daily hardships due to the dire economic situation in the enclave, their Hamas leaders spend over $100 million a year on the group’s military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, according to estimates by both Israeli and Palestinian sources. Spending on digging tunnels accounts for some $40 million of that annual sum. By way of comparison, the budget of the last Hamas government, which dissolved in April 2014, was $530 million. - https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-spends-100-million-a-year-on-military-infrastructure/

And as for US aid, much of that is returned via purchases.

Israel ends up sacrificing far more value in return for the nearly $4 billion it annually receives from Washington. That’s because nearly all military aid to Israel—other than loan guarantees, which cost Washington nothing, the U.S. gives Israel no other kind of aid—consists of credits that go directly from the Pentagon to U.S. weapons manufacturers. In return, American payouts undermine Israel’s domestic defense industry, weaken its economy, and compromise the country’s autonomy—giving Washington veto power over everything from Israeli weapons sales to diplomatic and military strategy. When Washington meddles directly in Israel’s domestic affairs, as it does often these days, Israeli leaders who have lobbied for these payments—including current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—are simply reaping the rewards of their own penny-wise, pound-foolish efforts.

The Israeli military, often ranked as the fourth-most powerful in the world, has become an adjunct to American power in a crucial region in which the U.S. has lost the appetite for projecting military force. Israeli intelligence functions as America’s eyes and ears, not just in the Middle East but in other key strategic theaters like Russia and Central Asia and even parts of Latin America. Controlling access to the output of Israel’s powerful high-tech sector is a strategic advantage for the U.S. that alone is worth many multiples of the credits Israel receives. - https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/end-american-aid-israel [and that source is actually opposing the amount of aid.]

The only option here is to contend that the US should be an isolationist country.

Friends with Benefits: Why the U.S.-Israeli Alliance Is Good for America by Michael Eisenstadt, David Pollock ...

. The U.S.-Israeli alliance now contributes more than ever to American security, as bilateral cooperation to deal with both military and nonmilitary challenges has grown in recent years... it is a two-way partnership whose benefits to the United States have been substantial. The other, less tangible costs of the U.S.-Israeli alliance -- mainly, damage to Washington's reputation in Arab and Muslim countries, a problem also caused by American interventions and decades of U.S. support for autocratic leaders in the Middle East -- pale in comparison with the economic, military, and political gains it affords Washington.

Israel has also emerged as an important niche defense supplier to the U.S. military, with sales growing from $300 million per year before September 11 to $1.1 billion in 2006, due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel's military research and development complex has pioneered many cutting-edge technologies that are transforming the face of modern war, including cyberweapons, unmanned vehicles (such as land robots and aerial drones), sensors and electronic warfare systems, and advanced defenses for military vehicles. - https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/friends-benefits-why-us-israeli-alliance-good-america

The U.S.-Israeli economic and commercial relationship now spans IT, bio-tech, life sciences, health care solutions, energy, pharmaceuticals, food and beverage, defense industries, cyber-security, and aviation, to name just a few sectors.
Critical components of leading American high-tech products are invented and designed in Israel, making these American companies more competitive and more profitable globally. Cisco, Intel, Motorola, Applied Materials, and HP are just a few examples.
Israel is home to more than 2,500 U.S. firms employing some 72,000 Israelis, according to an estimate by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Thousands more jobs are supported indirectly by these employers.

The Massachusetts Example
The New England-Israel Business Council released a study that shows that Israeli-founded businesses have generated about 9,000 jobs in Massachusetts alone, and indirectly support an additional 18,000. These companies represent nearly four per
cent of the state’s GDP. And that is just one state. In Beersheva – less than an hour’s train ride from Tel Aviv –American and Israeli companies are working side-by-side at CyberSpark. It is a fast-growing, world-class, hi-tech office park, adjacent to a top academic institution, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, and not far from where critical public-sector institutions, such as the IDF’s cyber and intelligence units, will soon be located. This unique eco-system is rapidly attracting more American companies to take part in developing the defenses that will protect the new economy. - https://il.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/policy-history/fact-sheet-u-s-israel-economic-relationship/

 One Arabs citizens of Israel:

Roughly 21% of Israel’s more than nine million citizens are Arabs. The vast majority of the Israeli Arabs - approximately 83% - are Muslims, 9% are Druze, and 8% are Christian. Some 52% of the Arab citizens live in northern Israel, 20% in the “Triangle” region in the center of the country, 18% in the Negev, and 8% in the mixed cities (Acre, Haifa, Jaffa, Ramla, Lod, Nof Hagalil and Maalot-Tarshiha), 1% in the Jerusalem Corridor (including West Jerusalem) and 2% in the rest of the country.

Arabs in Israel have equal voting rights; it is one of the few places in the Middle East where Arab women may vote.

...

The sole legal distinction between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel is that the latter are not required to serve in the Israeli army. This was to spare Arab citizens the need to bear arms against their brethren. Nevertheless, many Arabs have volunteered for military duty – more than 1,000 in 2020 – and the Druze and Circassian communities are subject to the draft.

Some economic and social gaps between Israeli Jews and Arabs result from the latter not serving in the military...

In 2020, the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) reported “a dramatic rise in the share of Arab Israelis who define their primary identity as ‘Israeli,’ and a concomitant sharp decline in the share who self-identify as ‘Palestinian.’”...

The national election of 2021 was notable for a radical change in Israeli politics, with the Ra’am Party becoming the first Arab party to join a governing coalition. ... It could have brought down the government at any time if it was dissatisfied with its direction. .... - https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-status-of-arabs-in-israel

And now, as of 11-4-23, the Israel, as it periodically has since its founding in 1948, is once again foundtself fighting for its survival. And it remains that Israel, not the “Palestinians” is the entity which has the best historical, ancient claim to statehood of its territory, having existed as a kingdom, which land it lost due to disobedience to its covenant with God.

Which - unlike Muhammad’s “revelations” and his wars of conquest, was agreed to after profound supernatural demonstrations of Divine power, leaving no mistake as to who was commanding Israel to exterminate the generally wicked Canaanites from the land God chose for His people.

But, as God warned, which the land and statehood it lost due to disobedience to God, which land saw a succession of conquers, the last of which gave the Jews a portion of its historical land back, as part of the promise of God.

But which militant Palestinian Muslims refused to tolerate, refusing the US partition plan, and instead have sought the obliteration of the Jews since, and thus HAMAS and Hezbollah, among other Palestinian militant groups, staunchly oppose the Oslo Accords, and consider the Abrahamic accords to be traitorous.

Yet even with Islam violent wars have much been a historical constant. And which is consistent with the prophecy given to the mother of the Arabs regarding her son. the product of Abraham yielding to his barren wife with a dead womb to have a child thru her, being impatient, for God had promised a child to Abram and Sarah of a son who would be the progenitor of a vast innumerable people. Genesis 15:1–16)

And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. (Genesis 16:12)

Yet, while being the clear victim of unjust attacks by recalcitrant warring Muslims, Israel itself is suffering chastisement via the wicked, which serves as a sword of such, (1Psalms 17:13) having much adopted Western immorality, and overall rejecting the Messiah who came as foretold, as spiritual savor, preceding the conversion of Israel, as a remnant, and the Lord Christ’s physical rule in which the Jews will worship the Lord of glory.

So may all, including all Arabs, as with Jews, now find peace and fellowship thru the risen Lord Jesus which both religions deny. For, as in the past, the only hope of peace was born in the Middle East.

Supplemental:

The Hamas Covenant or Hamas Charter, formally known in English as the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, was originally issued on 18 August 1988 and outlines the founding identity, stand, and aims of Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement).[1] A new charter was issued by Hamas leader Khaled Mashal on 1 May 2017 in Doha.[2]

The original Charter identified Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be Muslims who "fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors". The charter states that "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories,[3] and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.[4][5] It emphasizes the importance of jihad, stating in article 13, "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."[6] The charter also states that Hamas is humanistic, and tolerant of other religions as long as they "stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region".[7] The Charter adds that "renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion [of Islam]".[1] The original charter was criticized for its violent language against all Jews, which many commentators have characterized as incitement to genocide.[8][9]

The 2017 charter accepted for the first time the idea of a Palestinian state within the borders that existed before 1967 and rejected recognition of Israel, which it terms as the "Zionist enemy".[2] It advocates such a state as transitional but also advocates the "liberation of all of Palestine".[14][15] The new document also states that the group does not seek war with the Jewish people but only against Zionism which it holds responsible for "occupation of Palestine".[16] Mashal also stated that Hamas was ending its association with the Muslim Brotherhood.[14] After a new charter was scheduled to be issued in May 2017, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office issued a statement in which it accused Hamas of trying to fool the world and also asked it to stop its terror activities for a true change.[17]

Hamas leadership's actions and terminology has remained antisemitic. An example being, Hamas leader, Fathi Hamad's 2019 statement, who said "You should attack every Jew possible in all the world and kill them".[38][39][40][41] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Charter

On the destruction of Israel:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (Preamble)

The exclusive Moslem nature of the area:

"The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Holy Possession] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. No one can renounce it or any part, or abandon it or any part of it." (Article 11)

"Palestine is an Islamic land... Since this is the case, the Liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Moslem wherever he may be." (Article 13)

The call to jihad:

"The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews' usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised." (Article 15)

"Ranks will close, fighters joining other fighters, and masses everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to the call of duty, loudly proclaiming: 'Hail to Jihad!'. This cry will reach the heavens and will go on being resounded until liberation is achieved, the invaders vanquished and Allah's victory comes about." (Article 33)

Rejection of a negotiated peace settlement:

"[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility." (Article 13)

Condemnation of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty:

"Egypt was, to a great extent, removed from the circle of struggle [against Zionism] through the treacherous Camp David Agreement. The Zionists are trying to draw other Arab countries into similar agreements in order to bring them outside the circle of struggle. ...Leaving the circle of struggle against Zionism is high treason, and cursed be he who perpetrates such an act." (Article 32)

Anti-Semitic incitement:

The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him." (Article 7)

The charter makes a point of the ideological difference between Hamas, with its radical Islamic world view, and the secularly-oriented The Palestine Liberation Organization, but pays lip service to the need for Palestinian unity needed to face the Jewish enemy. It notes that an Islamic world view completely contradicts The Palestine Liberation Organization’s secular orientation and the idea of a secular Palestinian state. Nevertheless, notes the charter, Hamas is prepared to aid and support every “nationalist trend” working “to liberate Palestine” and is not interested in creating schisms and disagreements (Article 27). - https://embassies.gov.il/holysee/AboutIsrael/the-middle-east/Pages/The%20Hamas-Covenant.aspx​

  Also see https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/hamas-words-and-deeds#:~:text=In%20its%20original%201988%20charter,%2C%20religious%20or%20sectarian%20grounds.%E2%80%9D

Actual document: Hamas Covenant 1988 The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988 - https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp