Details on How To Contribute to Brit-Am

The Israelite-Ireland-Jewish Problem

"The Confusion of the Irish"
by Konrad Siegfried.

Foreword by Brit-Am Editor:
The present day Republic of Ireland is often critical of the State of Israel. There are however sympathisers of Israel in the Irish Establishment. Irish intellectuals are often capable of almost total identification with the Jews and with Israel. This is a phenomenon seldom found amongst other peoples but not uncommon amongst the Irish. Despite these not-so-uncommon exceptions most Irishmen are not so pro-Jewish. On the contrary. The bias against Israel is felt not only at the official level but through the activities of numerous Irish NGOs, Irish media, intellectuals, and what seems to be popular support for the Palestinians against the Jews of Israel.
The Irish themselves are not necessarily anti-Jewish. They usually do not consider themselves to be so and on the individual level a Jewish visitor will not receive that impression. Nevertheless a resentment of the State of Israel is there. It is not rational. It is however compatible with the history of Ireland from the beginning of its independence. During World War-2 Ireland did not accept ANY Jewish refugees. There is a claim that they accepted 7 Jewish dentists who had to be Middle-Aged so that there be less chance of Jewish penetration of local womanhood. This however we now suspect to be an urban legend. There were none. A few dozen or more Catholic Clergy of Jewish origin from Austria were helped but this could have been done as a favor to the Nazis as much as anything else.

Queries About Ireland.
The Tragedy of Ireland.

Many of the Irish did serve in the Allied Forces and work for the Allied cause but that is a somewhat separate topic.
They did not help Jews even in a small way which they could have done.
Anti-Jewish sentiment was responsible and openly expressed.

The Jews on the other hand often identified the Irish and helped them.
This to our mind may have been a mistake.

In the article below Konrad Siegfried discusses some of the issues and makes suggestions that we disagree with but are worth noting. Our own comments will follow in a table-box like the present one.

The Confusion of the Irish
by Konrad Siegfried

TR-39: Canada, Finland, and Ireland
 Ten Tribes Tribal Report #3.
" An American who knows History"  Defends the Irish
Supposedly, now the Irish identify with the Palestinians.  However, this was NOT always so.One of the chief men in the IRA during the 1920s was a Jew named Robert Briscoe, who sympathized with the Irish cause.  He later became the mayor of Dublin.

Foreign Policy says:

#At first, in the 1920s and 1930s, Irish sympathies lay squarely  with the Zionists and drew heavily on the presumed parallels  between historic Irish and Jewish suffering, as well as the  shared traumatic experience of large-scale migration in the 19th century.

#Drawing a parallel with their own history of occupation, the Irish also  championed the Zionist struggle for self-determination against the British.  A correspondent to The Bell, a leading Irish magazine, raged over current  events in Mandate Palestine in March 1945: "Never let it be forgotten that  the Irish people ... have experienced all that the Jewish people in Palestine  are suffering from the trained thugs gunning tarzans and British terrorists  that the Mandatory power have imposed upon the country."  #

 This early affection of the Irish for the Jews was reciprocated,

During the Israeli War of Independence, Yitzhak Shamir admired the Irish Republicans and took the name "Michael" for his codename, in honor of Michael Collins of the IRA. 

This Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs says:

# "The Jewish underground fighting the British during the pre-1948  era was modeled on the old IRA - Yitzhak Shamirs nom de guerre was,  after all, Michael, after Michael Collins. In the decades after  Israels birth Irish Jews, like Rabbi Herzogs sons Chaim  (a future president of Israel) and Yaacov (a great scholar and diplomat),  as well as others like Max Nurock of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and  Geoffrey Wigoder (editor of the Encyclopedia Judaica) contributed  greatly to Israeli political, diplomatic, and intellectual life.

# As such, Israel always hoped that Ireland would draw on what David Vital, the distinguished Israeli historian, has termed "an Irishmans intuitive understanding of the Jewish-Israeli predicament" and support it in its struggle for survival and security. As Zvi Gabay,  Israels first resident ambassador in Dublin, put it, "as a small democracy, Israel is guided by the same school of thought that built Ireland. The founding fathers of Ireland and Israel - although they came from different backgrounds - learned the same lessons from the same eternal book, the Bible."  Anti-Semitism is rare in Ireland; though they are pro-Palestinian. This Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs continues:

 #"When Ireland became a republic upon leaving the British Commonwealth in 1949, it was written in the Irish constitution that Judaism was a state religion. It thus had the same rights as Catholicism and Protestantism. The constitution says that whenever there is a state function, for instance for a foreign president,  the order of presentations is: the Irish president, the head of the Catholic church, the head of the Protestant church and then the Chief Rabbi.  

 This produced amusing results. Again from This Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs says:

# "For over twenty years there were three Jewish members of parliament and only one Protestant one. When one asked how this was possible, the usual  answer was that the Catholics, who accounted for 98 percent of the population, had nothing against the Jews. They were, however, opposed to the Protestants who had ruled the country in the past.

So what is the source of this schizophrenic mood swing?!

If one views the Irish as the original peoples of Ireland (including Ulster),  then the Irish desire for Independence and even a return of the ancient Gaelic homeland of Ulster mimics the Jewish desire of Independence and return to the ancient homeland.  Their desire to reunite Ulster to them is equivalent to the Jewish desire for a United Jerusalem. 

The Irish desire against a Partition of Irish could be seen as mimicking  the Jewish desire against a partition of their ancient homeland into Israel and Palestine to appease a violent Arab minority, just as the  British appeased a violent Orange minority by partitioning Ireland. Read about the Curragh Mutiny and the threat of Orange Violence when the Irish tried to peacefully press for Home Rule:
And even as the Arabs are overall a minority, except in Judea and Samaria (wrongly labeled the West Bank), even so the Orange are overall a minority in Ireland, except in gerrymandered Ulster.

In fact, Jerusalem might be a better example.  Jews are a clear  majority in Jerusalem. They have been for centuries.  Both British and Turkish censuses bore this out.   Yet the Arabs claim a majority in East Jerusalem (only by dividing the city borders dishonestly), which is obtained only  by an artificially convenient partition.  And to what end ... to appease a minority who threaten violence against the Jews, even as the Orange threaten violence whenever talk of unification came up.     For ex: the 1914 Curragh Munity saw the first large scale weapons smuggling into Ireland going to the Orange NOT to the Irish.  The "Ulster Volunteers threatened violence. .  Yet, even so, Ulster has a bare Orange Majority maintained by an artificially drawn line.  In fact 2 of the 6 counties have pro-Irish majorities.  Another 2 are divided.  Only 2 are clearly pro-British.  Ulster is an artificial construct like East Jerusalem.   While religious discrimination exists in both Israel and the Arab world, it is clear that the Arab discrimination is far more severe and quite often violent. Jewish discrimination is usually civil only, and can be addressed in the courts - often successfully.   Arab courts only listen to Muslims.   In 1969 there were "pogroms" against the Irish in Ulster, and 25,000 had to flee to the Irish Republic.  This is equivalent to the 19th century Turko-Syrian attacks on Christians, to the Muslim outrages of the Lebanese Civil War, and to the ongoing present attacks on Egyptian Christian Copts.   The Civil Rights of Christians are regularly violated in Araby. They are relegated to a dhimmitude status, even as the Irish were set in a dhimmi status in Ulster.   And finally, both the British and the Muslims had empires. In fact, the Muslim still desire a Caliphate again.   So clearly, the Irish resemble the Jews.   But if one redefines the issue as colonialism (incorrectly, I might add) then the Jews are wrongly re-defined as "British" colonials.   This makes the Jews start looking like the British in Colonial Ireland and in Ulster today.  And it makes the Palestinians look like the Irish, flying in the face of all rationality.   The Irish apparently see the issue that way.  They did not always.   The problem is an assessment of primal cause. If one sees the Jews  as invaders, they end up looking like Colonial British.  If one sees the Jews are wanting their homeland back, the Jews end up looking like the Irish.  

A clear assessment of history shows the Jews looking more like the Irish.  But the trick is (and remember I am American): How do you get the Irish to re-adjust their perspective?!   One has to remember that the division of Ireland is a constant insult to the Irish mind; and so the Irish maintain a constant anti-British world view in these matters.   This would not be so bad but the Irish further aggravate this by conflating (erroneously I might add) their ethnic identification with Catholicism.  They ignore the fact that it was the Pope who ordered the (then Catholic)  British into Ireland (then dissident Christian) in order to Catholicize the Irish, in the 12th century in a papal decree called the Laudibiliter.    So amazingly, the Protestant anti-Papist Orange are only in Ireland thanks to a Papal decree; and the Catholic Irish are fighting the British who are there because of the Pope.   No wonder the Irish are schizophrenic.   Prior to 1956, before the British signed on to a pro-Israeli stance during the Sinai Crisis, it was easy for the Irish  to support Israel. Britain  was the "common foe" of both the Irish  and the Jews.   After the Sinai Crisis, and 1967, Britain's affinities switched  (I know some would say the British are still anti-Semitic - this is certainly true of the BBC).  

As an American, I would tell the Jewish community to stress these 4 points when dealing with the Irish.  

1) The Jews are not colonials, but natives.  The Arabs were invaders even as the British invaded Ireland nine hundred years ago.  If one accepts Arabs rights to Jewish land based on invasion, then the Irish should have  no complaint against the British who took Irish land by military action.     That should shock the Irishman into a re-examination of his basic operating assumptions.  

2) The division of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and especially the division of Jerusalem should be seen as equivalent to the division of Ireland in order to appease an angry minority (in Israel's case, the Arabs; in Irelands case, the Orangemen).  

3) If the Irish merely base their world view on doing the opposite of what the British do, they are still letting the British control them - in an odd sort of contrary way.  Irish policies and views should be adjudged independent of whatever Britain does - this is true independence.  

4) It should be emphasized, in a sort of Biblical way, that heaven will not smile on Irish desires to erase Irish partition while the Irish, at the same time, demand a partition of Eretz Yisroel (The Land of Israel), call it karma, payback, or, using Judeo-Christian values, reaping what you sew.   By all sane reckoning, the Irish have allowed themselves to accept a false premise which brings them to a conclusion directly antithetical to their common historical experiences with the Jews.   Remind the Irish that the British Penal laws against the Irish were roughly equivalent to the Russian laws against the Jews in Eastern Europe.  Both areas were called the Pale, oddly enough.   Remind them that both laws drove the Irish and the East European Jews to America.   Remind them that the IRA, and the Hagannah, the Irgun, and the Stern Gang, all fought the British.   And remind them that in 1947-48, the Royal Ulster Rifles (the Orange Unit of the British Army) were fighting the Jews  in Israel. To be fair, they earlier fought the Arab uprising in the 1930s.

See: .

The Irish situation is complex.  Both sides can compare themselves to one side or the other of the Palestinian-Jewish dialectic; and what view either side takes depends on some primal assumptions.  Colonel Lawrence (of Arabia) was the illegitimate son of an  Anglo-Irish (read British colonial) noble, yet he was an Arabist. Maybe his illegitimacy caused him to identify with Ishmael. Simultaneously Churchill who loved the Orange was a Zionist.   So whether one is Green or Orange, ones views are twisted by initial assumptions.   However, the Irish have no historical excuse to identify with the Arab.  And the present Orange identification with Israel may be a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.   One is amazed that the Orange can support the partition of Ireland and simultaneously support the Jews who oppose partition of Israel.  This is altogether inconsistent - since the partitioning of both countries is historically similar.    Jewish histories emphasize Jerusalem before the expulsions  of the Jews in the 2nd century.  Irish records emphasize the  centrality of Ulster before the expulsion of the Irish in the 17th  century.  Indeed, one might see a similarity between the  O'Neill rebellions of the 17th century and the Bar Kochba rebellions of the 2nd.  And though expelled, by law, the Irish and the Jews kept returning to their respective  ancient patrimonies and still assert their claim to them. The Arabs drove the Jews out in Hebron in 1929. There were ethnic cleansing of the Irish from areas of Ulster in  1969.   I suspect that if both the Orange and the Green were to consider the history of Israel and Zionism, and the injustice of the partitioning of Eretz Yisroel (The Land of Israel),  this would lead to some amelioration of their own problems.   The Orange might start to see the partitioning of Ireland as offensive, and the Irish might start to de-Catholicize (a process they have already begun.  Indeed, Irish Catholicism is now quite weak in the South.  It seems not be be native, but merely a historical response to the British. It survives strongly ONLY in the North where it is an ethnic pride issue.)   One advantage the Jews have over the Irish is that the Jews are far more sober.  The Irish (Green and Orange) seem to be far too fond of whiskey.   That is my view.  I am American,  so my opinion may not be respected.

Brit-Am Comment:
We see both the Northern Irish and the southern Irish as of Israelite Origin. At the least both groups contain within them Israelite elements. Historically and actually the Northern Irish have been and still are more conscious of Israelite origin than the southern Irish. The Northern Irish also feel an affinity with the Jews and the State of Israel.
On the other hand the southern Irish seem to identify with Arabs.
We sympathize with Irish nationalism. Irish language and culture should be encouraged. The Protestants of Ulster also have rights and aspirations. A British Ulster is better for British defence and economy. Northern Ireland should remain British. They should not be forced into merger with the south. The Republic of Ireland has sinned against Judah. They have not repented of their pro-Nazi past but rather are now identifying with Arab-Nazis just as they played friendly with the German ones.
Based on past experiences it may be that the Jews have little to expect from them.
The Northern Irish are now threatened by Roman Catholic demographics partly because in the past they were more economically progressive. Catholic immigrants came from southern Ireland for work.
This is fair enough.
If due to Mexican legal and illegal immigration California ends up with a majority of Hispanics who want California to be part of Mexico should it be allowed?
What if such an eventuality were to somehow threaten the whole of the USA?
Solutions are not necessarily so simple.

In the case of Israel we believe that the Palestinians should be strongly encouraged to emigrate. Most of them would willingly do so if suitable opportunities were available and other Arabs did not interfere.

In Ulster we cannot say what the solution should be.
If a merger were to take place would the southern Irish be prepared for the Northern Irish coming to dominate all of Ireland or if not dominate, achieve an inordinate predominance?
Irish culture does not appear strong enough as it is now.
Are not many of the Irish leaders more Catholic and European in their loyalties than Irish?
Why this blind identification with Palestinians?
It is offensive not only to Jews but also to many Ulstermen.

If, as Brit-Am, Movement of the Ten Tribes, believes very many of the inhabitants of both southern Ireland as well as of Northern Ireland in addition to Wales, Scotland, and England are of Israelite Origin should not a solution be sought along Hebraic Lines in accordance with Biblical values?

To Make an Offering to Brit-Am:


Pleased with what you read?

The Brit-Am enterprise is a Biblical work.
God willing, they who assist Brit-Am will be blessed.
Brit-Am depends on contributions alongside purchases of our publications.

Click Here to make an offering.
Click Here to view our publications.

'It is impossible to rightly govern the world without
God or the Bible.'
George Washington

Brit-Am is the "still small voice" that contains the truth.

Security Cameras, Florida, USA.
security cameras

The Lifestyle Doctor