Answer:
In Isaiah 42:6 and 49:8 the Lost Ten Tribes in their places of exile are referred to in the Hebrew Bible as a Brit-Am.  Brit-Am means a "covenant (brit) of the people". Historically the name Britain may have been derived from the Hebrew Brit-Am and Britain was referred to in the past as Britammia or it may be one of those "coincidences" that frequently occur and have great significance.  cf. What we wrote in our Commentary on Isaiah:
  [Isaiah 42:6] I THE LORD HAVE CALLED THEE IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND WILL HOLD THINE HAND, AND WILL KEEP THEE, AND GIVE THEE FOR A COVENANT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR A LIGHT OF THE GENTILES;
   “A COVENANT OF THE PEOPLE” in Hebrew Brit-Am. Israel will be a “Brit-Am”. In the Middle Ages Britain sometimes referred to herself as “Britammia”.  The Malbim says that “Brit-Am" means Israel.
This is why we chose “Brit-Am for our organization.  “Brit-Am” represents the Lost Ten Tribes returning. Other reasons were that “Brit-Am” hints at Britain from whom many of those to whom we direct our message originate.
Our friend Cecil Davis pointed out that “Brit-Am” can also be understand as a shortened way of saying “Britain and America”. “A LIGHT OF THE GENTILES” On the whole the LTTs have instructed and enlightened other nations.
[Isaiah 49:8] THUS SAITH THE LORD, IN AN ACCEPTABLE TIME HAVE I HEARD THEE, AND IN A DAY OF SALVATION HAVE I HELPED THEE: AND I WILL PRESERVE THEE, AND GIVE THEE FOR A COVENANT OF THE  PEOPLE, TO ESTABLISH THE EARTH, TO CAUSE TO INHERIT THE DESOLATE HERITAGES; a covenant of the people [Hebrew: "BRIT-AM" i.e. Britain], to establish the
earth [or in the Hebrew: "to found a country", e.g. the U.S.A., the State of Israel], to cause to inherit the desolate heritages".
"British" could mean "belonging to the Brit" or "man of the Brit". In Hebrew "brit" means covenant.
"ish" means "man of'" or "belonging to" and so it is employed in Medieval Hebrew. It is true that in Biblical Hebrew as we know it you would not probably say "Brit-Ish" but maybe rather "Ish-Brit"
but this is not so certain and anyway there may have been dialectical alternatives as archaeological evidence is indicating.
The suffix "-ish" meaning "belonging to" (e.g. English = Engl-ish) exists in English and is probably derived from the Hebrew. Incidentally in our work "Lost Israelite Identitiy" we identified the
so-called "Sea Peoples" with Israelites. This claim of our has since been strengthened by much additional evidence. At the least it is now generally accepted in academic circles that a good portion of the so-called "Sea Peoples" originated in the Land of Canaan (i.e. in Biblical Israel).
One of the proofs we used was that names employed by the Egyptians for these peoples use the suffix "-ish" or something similar, e.g. Sakaresh (i.e. issacar-ish), Ekwesh, Teresh, Tulish, Uashuash,
In this case the suffix "-ish" would mean "man of" or  "belonging to" and would be derived from the way these people referred to themselves.

In 1776 the English-speaking world was rent by a Revolution of ideas and
expectations that found voice in one of the greatest documents of world
history, the Declaration of Independence. What all too few people on either
side of the Atlantic appreciate, however, is that many of the ideas adopted
by the Founders of the United States originated in the progressive
movements of Britain. Whereas we in the New World were able to cast off the
past and embrace the future, the Home Islands were not so lucky. They were
too much under the thumb of an entrenched Establishment to enact the kinds
of reforms that the best minds of the British Empire had developed on
self-governance of self-reliant peoples. And so we went our separate ways,
not at all happily.
Britain and the United States fought two wars, one from 1774-1783, one from
1812-1814. The first established the independence of the United States and
set America upon a revolutionarily different course — republican
(anti-monarchist), democratic, religiously and racially pluralistic — from
its cousins across "the pond". The second forced Britain to give up hopes
the U.S. would fail and the Empire could reannex the shattered parts.
But the British ruling class could not get its bitter defeat out of its
craw, and vowed an oath of eternal enmity to the hated Yankee. They did
everything in their power to isolate, diminish, or at least hem in the new
Nation. Republican democracy was as much anathema to the British ruling
class of the late 18th and early 19th Centuries as Communism is to
Americans today, and Britain tried with the United States what the United
States has tried with Cuba: to isolate it and prevent its influence from
spreading. Unfortunately for Britain, American-style republican democracy
really was the "wave of the future", unlike Castroist Communism, and there
was no holding the United States back.
The resources and resilience of the United States were too great for any
European power or combination of powers to thwart, and the U.S. gradually
grew — in large part by annexations of territory — into the greatest
economic, military, and cultural power in the history of the world, greater
than all the nations of Europe combined.
During the U.S. Civil War, Britain tried its best to break the U.S. in two.
British newspapers gleefully announced the outbreak of hostilities at Fort
Sumter with headlines proclaiming "Untied States". The British
"military-industrial complex" of the day tried to persuade the British
government to declare for the South and rush aid to the Confederacy. But
the government was too wise. They knew that the Union would likely win, for
the balance of economic, demographic, and industrial power was too far over
to the North's advantage for the South to have any realistic chance. Still,
the British government turned a blind eye to efforts to use British
territories — including Canada — to recruit volunteers, stock Confederate
larders, and supply munitions to an army hard-pressed to supply itself.
British shipyards actually constructed warships for the South! Only when
the outcome of the war became clear did the British government step in to
forbid the last Confederate warships from being delivered to the Rebels.
The balance of power had shifted, and the British ruling class, though they
hated the fact, understood that to attack the United States might destroy
the British Empire. After the Civil War concluded in a massive Union
victory, the enraged Union might storm north and take Canada, sail south
and take the British Caribbean, and maybe declare for Irish independence,
instigate native revolts in India and Africa, even sail against the Home
Islands. So the British Empire let the South be crushed, lest it be the
Empire that the Union crushed. To defend British North America, the cunning
British ruling elite created the "Dominion of Canada" as an "independent"
country the U.S. could not properly take as settlement for its claims
against Britain for its aid to the South. Canada wasn't really independent
at all, of course, but this pretense did keep Canada British for almost 65
more years. Unfortunately for the Empire, some Canadians actually believed
Canada was independent, and gradually moved to make it so in fact. (Britain
put its assets in its wife's name, and she decided to take them!)

The British Diaspora
At one time the British Empire was the greatest overseas empire in history,
second, if at all in history, only to the contiguous land empire of the
great Mongol lord, Jenghis Khan. One fourth of the world's population and
one fifth of its territory has at one time or another been controlled by
England, and there is a sizable diaspora of Brits and Briticized natives
all over the former British Empire. "The sun never sets on the British
Empire" is a boast that could accurately be made in 1914 and can almost be
made today, for Britain retains a number of small possessions all around
the globe. (Captain John Smith — of Pocahontas fame — wrote as early as
1631, "Why should the brave Spanish soldier brag the sun never sets in the
Spanish dominions, but ever shineth on one part or other we have conquered
for our king?" )
The British Empire failed not all at once, nor even in a few dramatic acts,
but only gradually, over generations. It perished because it refused to
federalize. Americans didn't want out; they wanted in: representation in
Parliament. London refused. Canada didn't want out either, but Parliament
still, 91 years after the Declaration of Independence, wouldn't let
Canadians into Westminster but created Canada a separate country with its
own parliament. Nor would it let in Australians, New Zealanders, South
Africans, Indians, Jamaicans, or any other member from any other colony —
but Ireland; and curiously, that didn't work out.
The colonials went on flying the Union Jack, or flags of their own that
incorporated the Union Jack; kept swearing allegiance to the King or Queen;
kept thinking of themselves as British.

Still, many Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, and other people from
former British colonies look wistfully to the past, to that once great and
enormous Empire that spotted the globe, and wish it could have held together.

Recently, some people in the United States have expressed aloud a will to
heal, at least partly, the breach opened between America and Britain by the
Revolutionary War. They have suggested that the United Kingdom (or, as we
prefer to call it non-monarchically, Great Britain) join NAFTA, even if to
do so would mean it would have to leave the European Union. In early 2000,
Senator Phil Gramm of Texas asked the United States International Trade
Commission to research the likely costs and benefits to all NAFTA countries
of such accession. In October 2000, the ITC issued its report, which found
that there could be significant though not extraordinary benefits — but
insignificant costs — to such accession, even if Britain had to leave the
EU to join NAFTA.

Answer: Your question is not so clear to me BUT supposing we must
reconsider who is Israel in the light of the anti-Jewish attitudes of
peoples we once considered to be of Israelite descent?
Fist of all Lost Tribe Gentiles who are unaware of their ancestry and of
Biblical truth can be anti-Jewish and so can Jews and people of Jewish
descent also be anti-Jewish.
The northern ten tribes split away from Judah and on several occasions
serious wars occurred between northern "Israel" and Judah before all of the
northern Israelites were exiled by Assyria.
I once heard on the Israeli radio a true incident in Poland: Two brothers
in a Polish school were consistently beating up Jewish pupils and so the
headmaster called
their parents in for consultation. The parents then decided that it was
time to reveal to their children that they themselves were Jewish and their
own parents had hidden the fact due to fear of persecution. In this case
the children had subconsciously been violently aroused by their own hidden
identity. They had known that something was wrong but had not been able to
realize it in their own consciousness.
This is however an exception.
On the whole we believe that someone of Jewish or Israelite ancestry even
if he does not realize it will instinctively be inclined to be pro-Jewish.
Secondly our claims that nations with a strong contingent of Israelites
amongst them are relatively speaking less anti-Jewish than other nations
still holds despite the present phenomenon in France, Scandinavia, etc.
Thirdly we always recognized the possibility that these nations may be only
partly of Israelite descent albeit the Israelite component was always
qualitatively prominent.  Canaanites and Edomites and other intermarried
with all the Tribes of Israel and these elements may sometimes take over
but are not always negative in themselves.
Fourth consider Scandinavian Mythology and the possibility that this
reflects prophetic truth:
In the beginning the As (Aseir) People fought against the Vana people near
the mouth of the Danube River in southern Russia.
The Vana practised incest and were more primitive. The two peoples
concluded a peace and intermixed with each other.
They eventually moved to Scandinavia were kinred nations dwelt.
In the last days there will be a war against the "Giants" (Germans and
Slavs). After the war the Asa will take their leave of the Vana
and go their way.
The Scandinavian legends are also those of some of the inhabitants of Britain.
Were only the Asa descendants of Israel and does the legend reflect the
destiny of Israelites who eventually will separate from the others?
We have also the first two chapters of the Book of Hosea:
In the Book of Hosea the three children of "Gomer" represent the ten tribes
in Exile.
The three children of "Gomer"  also represent non-Israelite nations and in
"Lost Israelite Identity" and elsewhere we mentioned evidence
that the Lost Ten Tribes had confederated with non-Israelite elements from
"Gomer" (son of Japhet) that are now European. The "confederation" may
remain until the End Times.

7. I may be wrong but my impression from the News Items and Opinion
Articles we have been posting on "Jerusalem News"
indicates a growing awareness on some level that the Jewish People
(especially those in Israel) and the USA and all God's people
share a common destiny.

The aims of Brit-Am  are to encourage:
1. The spread of Identity Awareness.
2. Increased Identity research and clarification.
3. Association of members together for the sake of  mutual-empowerment,
learning and fellowship.

"And I will make of you a great nation. And I will bless you and make your
name great.
And you shall be a blessing.
"And I will bless they who bless you, and curse him who curses you.
And in you shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
(Gensis 12;2-3).