I have been trying to unravel certain mysteries about the identity and internal politics of the "Arabs" who arose following the decline of the Seleucid Empire. They seem to have had loyalty to kings in Emesa, Harran and Adiabene. With Jewish Adiabene and Josephus's tale of Anileus as a Jewish pseudo-state in the Euphrates valley, I'm left wondering about the precise definition of "Israelite" in the era.

Josephus discusses Arabs, Jews, Babylonians and Macedonians as the primary ethnic groups in Babylon.

I also have seen that Arabs and "Israelites" fought at Harran along with the final Neo-Assyrian kings. Both Jews and Arabs also have a connection to Ethiopia that predates and postdates Roman rule in the Near East.

Researching the camel - which facilitates Arab trade into Ethiopia/Yemen, and allows Charax-Spasinau to connect with Nabatea (trade South of the Euphrates) - I was surprised to learn it may have been introduced rather late to the Near East.

There seems to be evidence that the camel was introduced from Media to the Arabah Valley in direct response to trade disruptions caused by Egyptian military activity. This also coincides with Neo-Assyrian expansion into Canaan, and the defeat of Egyptian power. We then see that Neo-Assyria dominates Egypt and maintains complete hegemony over Mesopotamia, Babylon, Canaan and into South Arabia and the Upper Nile.

The narrative seems to be that Neo-Assyria, in building the new Iron Age world order, is directly responsible for introducing the camel trade as part of its geostrategy. I even wonder if the Arabah Valley serves as the etymological basis for the name "Arab".

The Arabs of the classical era seem to have been what we called the Arameans. As for the Israelites, we see the loss of the Amorite/Canaanite identity by the Roman era. The peoples of Ebla and Yamhad, of Ugarit. The founders of Babylon. Other than the Punic identity, there is only the Jewish identity in Canaan, as far as I can tell. Could it be that the broad application of "Yehudim" or Israelite was applied to the remnant Amorite identity? Could this explain the "Samaritan" identity - Israelites who have never had any allegiance to Jerusalem.

It's easy to interpret some of the turmoil of the first century by seeing the Arabs and Babylonian Israelites as serving in a role loyal to the concept of Assyrian hegemony. We see this with Adiabene, we also see it with the Parthian usurpers (Tiridates II, Osroes). We also see the beginnings of conflict between Israelite and Arab with Izates and Abia, or Anileus's "robber state". Where the two groups formerly were amicable "Sons of Abraham" in Babylon.

So, to reframe the question, did Neo-Assyria create the Near East camel trade, and is their hegemonic order responsible for creating the Arab and Israelite identities? That is, as deliberate geostrategic projects. By implication, Arab and Jewish power by the time of the common era represent an echo or remnant of Assyrian civilization (in contrast to Roman or Persian power).

This would also imply that both Christianity (and all its associated cults - eg.: Manicheanism) and Neoplatonic philosophy (and Islam, specifically the Shia variety) are products of Assyrian civilization in a very specific sense. That is, Assyrian thought won out over Persian, Greek, Egyptian, African or oriental toward the end of the Iron Age.