Brit-Am Research Sources (27 February, 2015, 8 Adar, 5775)
Contents:
1. Extracts from Article: The Miracle of Israel as She Was Restored to Her Promised Land After 2500 Years
2. Tarshish in the Netherlands or an Island in the West?
3. Guy Lestrange: A Letter to Yair re Remarks on the Chronciles of Eri, Scandinavian Origins of the Danaan
===============================
===============================
1. Extracts from Article: The Miracle of Israel as She Was Restored to Her Promised Land After 2500 Years
From: Mark Williams <mark.williams@ntlworld.com>
Shalom Yair
Have you read this?
http://www.discoverrevelation.com/31.html
It's an essay on the British involvement in the creation of the State of Israel.
The Miracle of Israel as She Was Restored to Her Promised Land After 2500 Years
http://www.discoverrevelation.com/31.html
Extracts:
On Nov. 5, 1914, Britain declared war on Turkey, the home of the Ottoman Empire. The Turks were allies of Germany. Neither the British, nor its allies in France, were in a position to send troops into the Middle East. Britain already had strong interests in the region, controlling Egypt and key points at the southern end of the Arab peninsula, including the Suez Canal. Britain wanted to keep this route open, it was the gateway to Britain's most valued colony, India. Much of the Middle East was in Ottoman hands and had been for centuries.
The British realized that if they were to have any success at all, they needed to cultivate a new ally, the Arabs. An agreement was drawn up between the British High Commissioner in Cairo, Sir Henry McMahon, and Hussein ibn Ali, the Sharif of Mecca. Ali hoped to be the first leader of an independent Arab state.
A letter from McMahon dated Oct. 24, 1915 was clearly written and excluded from any agreement "portions of Syria lying to the west of Damascus, as they cannot be said to be purely Arab, but it did promise the Arabs their own state. Subject to the above modifications, the letter stated, Great Britain is prepared to recognize and support all regions within the limits demanded by the Sharif of Mecca.
By this letter, the British promised away Turkish lands in exchange for Arab aid in defeating Turkey. Through this and subsequent letters, the areas that are today Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Egypt were included in the promise. Not mentioned in any exchange were the areas of Palestine, which at that time extended from the Gulf of Aquba to the southwest across to the Euphrates River in the Northwest corner of what is today Iraq.
In 1916, Britain and France began negotiating about what they would do with the Ottoman Empire when they won the war. A secret plan, known as the Sykes Picot agreement, divided the Ottoman Arab lands in 5 categories. Some were to be under direct French or British rule, others merely under French or British influence.
Finally, a region containing the "holy places, roughly corresponding to Palestine, was to be under the joint control of both. There was no mention of a separate homeland for the Jews. Neither was there any attempt to honor the understanding given to Hussein. And a third promise made the following year would complicate the situation ever further.
During WW1, a British scientist, Dr. Chaim Weitzmann, developed a synthetic acetone and showed how it could be used to create a new kind of smokeless gun powder called "cordite". This helped the British significantly shortened the war. In gratitude, the British government offered to grant Weitzmann a "boon". Weitzmann, a Zionist leader, asked for a homeland for his people. The problem was turned over to Lord Arthur Balfour. Balfour saw several advantages for Britain in acceding to Weitzmann's request.
First, he needed the support of the wealthy Jews inside Britain, especially Lord Lionel Rothschild, a wealthy Jew and prominent banker. Secondly, it would be in Britain's interests to have a state friendly to Britain in the eastern Mediterranean region. Thirdly, largely as a result of the growing sympathy for a Jewish state brought on thanks to Darby and the rising tide of evangelical Christianity, there was public support for the concept in Parliament. Lord Balfour then sent his famous letter, known to history as "The Balfour Declaration," that promised a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
His request resulted in the issuance of the Balfour Declaration, which in part said: "His majesty's government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object.
Lord Balfour had become an avid believer in the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy, through the influence of John Darby's extensive ministry. As a result, he believed that God could not lie to the Jewish people when He promised to return them to their own land and reestablish the State of Israel. Lord Balfour, with the assistance of another Member of Parliament named Lord Lindsay, who also believed in the literal promises of Bible prophecy, had exerted considerable influence on their colleagues for the sake of seeking to help establish a Jewish homeland.
In December 1917, at the height of WW1, Britain found itself in a position to implement the Balfour Declaration. In the providence of God, General Allenby captured Palestine from the Ottoman Empire, ending 400 years of Turkish Muslim rule. At the end of the war, the League of Nations dismantled the Ottoman Empire and divided the Middle East between two peoples, the Arabs and the Jews. Of the land apportioned to the Jews by the Balfour Declaration in 1917, only some 20% was actually given the Jews by 1921. The remainder of the promised Jewish homeland was awarded to the Arabs. This was due to an unexpected furor among the Muslims, who suddenly found the neglected and desolate land of Palestine to be of infinite value.
By the end of the Great War, Britain found itself in the position of having promised all things to all people, and now it was time to deliver. The McMahon Hussein Agreement gave the land east of Damascus to Hussein of Mecca. The Sikes Picot Agreement divided it up between Britain and France. And, the Balfour Declaration gave Palestine to the Jews. The French & British solved their differences by the simple expedient of dividing up the territory by drawing borders, freehand, over the map of the Middle East.
The French created Syria and Lebanon. The British carved Iraq and Transjordan out of what had been Mesopotamia. But when it came to Palestine, the Arabs dug in their heels and demanded that as well. Arab hopes had been raised by McMahon's declaration of support for Arab independence, which the Arabs now claimed encompassed the whole Middle East.
The lack of historical understanding on the part of the British and French diplomats involved is staggering. They drew boundary lines that artificially divided ancient tribal lands and divided tribes into nation states. The legacy of these "diplomats" to future generations was a Middle East in a perpetual state of war. Now, that's diplomacy!! The Balfour Declaration and the support it received in the British government greatly annoyed the Arabs. Even Winston Churchill had spoken Eloquently in favor of keeping Lord Balfour's commitment: "It is manifestly right that the Jews, who are scattered all over the world, should have a national home where some of them might be reunited. He went on to say it will be good for the world, good for the Jews, and good for Britain.
... In 1921, at the San Remo conference, the British said they had misspoken, and did not intend for the WHOLE of Palestine to become a Jewish State. They proposed instead to divide Palestine into Two states, one Arab, and one Jewish. ...
The British proposal to divide the area into two states was well received by the Jews. Chaim Weitzmann who went on to be Israel's first president, enthusiastically discussed the plan with King Faisal Hussein of Iraq, who initially gave his blessing, then withdrew his support in 1929. ..
The Peel Commission in 1937 offered a similar 2 nations, one state, proposal. Again, it was accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs. ...
The Woodhead Report of 1938 proposed an even smaller region of Jewish autonomy. Again, the Arabs rejected it; the Jews supported it, although somewhat more reluctantly.
The White Paper of 1939, offered by the British, was much more pro Arab than any previous offer. At the time, the British were trying to win Arab sympathies away from the Nazi Party. The White Paper curtailed Jewish immigration, cut back Jewish settlements, in fact, it was little more than a tacit recognition that Jews actually physically existed on the land. Amazingly, the Arabs rejected even this plan, which gives insight into what they really want. And what they really want is the total obliteration of any Jewish presence in what they continue to call Palestine.
In March 1939, the British government actually asked the Germans to "discourage travel" by Jews to the Holy Land. According to official documents, Sir Neville Henderson sent a cable to the Nazi Foreign Office. It stated that a large movement from Germany of Jewish refugees, who without visas or any arrangements for their reception, were attempting to land in any territory that saw to present the slightest possibility of accepting them. This is a cause of great embarrassment to His Majesty's government, and as it appears, to the American government and the latter have expressed a wish you should join the American charge d'affairs in Berlin in bringing the situation to the attention of the appropriate German Authorities and requesting them to discourage such travel on German ships.
The UN Partition Plan of 1947 offered by the UN gave a tiny portion of the land to Israel, the remainder to the Arabs, and declared Jerusalem an open city. This too, was rejected by the Arabs. The first time any partition plan ever offered by anyone was even looked at seriously by the Arab side was in 1968. That was after they had lost the West Bank and city of Jerusalem to Israel following their most recent attempt to wipe the Jewish State off the face of the earth.
The British immigration policy for Palestine underwent several modifications during the years between wars. As the Arabs objected to the influx of Jewish refugees fleeing Europe, Britain changed the rules to curtail Jewish immigration into Palestine. Britain's need for Arab oil became more important than keeping its promise to the Jews. In 1930, the White Paper was passed through Parliament, effectively banning further Jewish immigration to Palestine.
Certain elements within the British Foreign Ministry became hostile toward the Jews, especially some of the personnel working in Palestine. ...
The British withdrew, and Israel claimed the land of Palestine to be the Jewish homeland on May 14, 1948. They proclaimed a new State and providentially named it Israel. The next day, they were invaded on all sides by the combined might of the Muslim world. Humanly speaking, there is no way to explain how the Israelis defeated the well-trained, heavily armed Muslim army that outnumbered them 10 to 1.
Twelve hours before the document had to be signed and turned in, Israel's declaration of Independence, Ben Gurion heard the others in the next room arguing about what the name of their new nation would be. He could hear them through the walls tossing around possible names for the new state: Zion! Greater Zion, Judah, Judea. He thought that whenever you have three Jews in a room, you have 5 opinions. He knew the Arabs would have but one answer, Jihad, a holy war.
On May 15, 1948, five well equipped Muslim armies attacked the tiny new State of Israel from all sides. The British trained and equipped Arab Legion of Jordan attacked and captured the power station at Naharayim. An Iraqi expeditionary force tried to ford the Jordan River in the area of Gesher. They were held back for a full week by the poorly armed settlers of Gesher. The Iraqis finally withdrew, choosing to cross the river at a ford held by the Jordanians. The Syrians actually began their attack on the night of May 14. They unleashed a devastating barrage of heavy artillery against the poorly armed settlements south of the Sea of Galilee.
Arab radios announced with euphoric glee that the "War of Annihilation" had begun! The Arab Legions numbered more than 650,000 men. British mercenary officers of great renown led some of the Arab armies. All Arab armies were armed with the most modern of weapons and air power of the time. The Jews, on the other hand, had only 45,000 "troops", most of whom were guerrilla fighters from the Haganah, Palmach, or members of the Irgun and Stern groups. Under the British mandate, it was a crime punishable by death for a Jew to carry a firearm, although Arabs carried weapons openly.
As a result, the new Jewish army had very little with which to defend itself. Chaim Herzog, the Jewish historian, estimates the total armament at the Haganah's disposal was 10,500 rifles, 3,500 light submachine guns, 775 light machine guns, 34 3" mortars, and 670 2" mortars. And, worst of all, they only had sufficient ammunition for 3 days' fighting. The Palmach, the "Israeli Army," for want of a more descriptive term, was able to arm only 2 out of 3 of its fighters. Against the Arab Legion's modern jet air force, Israel had 20 unarmed Piper Cubs. The Arabs also controlled the only landing stripes in Palestine.
The Arabs fought a very different Jew than those who went meekly into Hitler's death camps, or lined up naked in front of ditches to be machine gunned by members of the SS Einsatzgruppen. Outnumbered by more than 100 to 1, and hopelessly outgunned, these survivors of the death camps, of countless persecutions in the Muslim countries, and of the hardships that life in Palestine had to offer shocked not just the Arab armies, but the entire world. Many Israelis charged into battle without a weapon to take one from the dead body of a fallen enemy.
A few Jews from outside the country flew in on a wing and a prayer with obsolete German Messerschmitt fighters purchased from Czechoslovakia. With these planes and some cavalier volunteer pilots, they cleared the skies of enemy planes and turned back an Egyptian armored corps in the Southern Gaza Strip. With a determination rarely seen in any war before or since, the Jews met every onslaught. 10% of the total population of the new Israeli State fell in battle. But when the dust cleared, the Israelis controlled all the land set aside for them by the original Mandate plus half the city of Jerusalem. On June 11, 1949, the Arabs withdrew, and the Israeli State became a fact.
At the beginning, it looked hopeless for the outnumbered and outgunned Jews. The Arabs were justified in their conviction of an easy victory. But some of the rabbis proclaimed God's promises from the Torah to the beleaguered men, "Five of you will chase a hundred, and a hundred of you will chase ten thousand, and your enemies will fall before you by the sword" (Leviticus 26 v.8)
The land of Israel became the land of the Jews, by miracle if you please. Their victory is inexplicable apart from the unseen intervention of the Hand of God. God has a Plan for the last days. A restored land of Israel, homeland to the Jewish people, is the key element in His plan, and the very existence of Israel bears testimony to it. The old rabbis remembered, and even the atheist immigrants from Russia took heed to the words of the prophet Isaiah: "Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure" (Isaiah 46 v.8-10)
Who Really Caused the Palestinian Refugees - Weeks before the war, Arab families were encouraged to abandon their homes and flee to the Arab countries. They were assured that within a matter of weeks, they would be allowed to return and reclaim their homes - and also the homes of the massacred Jews. Although the new Israeli government pleaded with them to stay and fight together for a common homeland, all but a handful crossed over into Jordan to wait for total victory against the Jews. They expected to return home as soon as the hated Jew was slaughtered. Instead, after the war was lost, their "brother" hosts kept them in miserable refugee camps and did nothing to help them.
===============================
===============================
2. Tarshish in the Netherlands or an Island in the West?
Tarshish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarshish
Extracts:
It has now been recognized that the inscriptions of Esarhaddon (AsBbE) indicate that Tarshish was an island (not a coastland) far to the west of the Levant (Thompson and Skaggs, 2013).
Around 1665, the followers of Shabbatai Zvi in zmir interpreted the ships of Tarshish as Dutch ships that would transport them to the Holy Land.
Esarhaddon, Assur Babylon E (AsBbE) (=K18096 and E 6262 in the British Museum and Istanbul Archaeological Museum, respectively) preserves "All the kings from the lands surrounded by sea- from the country Iadanana (Cyprus) and Iaman, as far as Tarshish, bowed to my feet." Here, Tarshish is certainly an island, and cannot be confused with Tarsus (Thompson and Skaggs 2013).
===============================
===============================
3. Guy Lestrange: A Letter to Yair re Remarks on the Chronciles of Eri, Scandinavian Origins of the Danaan
Re
Eerie Eri. An Unusual Source and Ten Tribes History
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/myth/irish/eri2.html
Hi
I had a quick look at your recently uploaded presentation on the chronicles of Eri ; good to see that you have clearly looked into this at some depth!
.... When researching the chronicle it became apparent that there had never been any proper study of it though I did come across some material from Brit-Am which interested me, being more open minded about the chronicle than most.
I have been asked by some if I am connected with those advocating the lost tribes theory- but must admit to having no motivation there. However I believe the chronicle is unique in being able to stand up to any question of its authenticity as I have collated much further material which is not on the websites you have seen. As you rightly point out, O'Connor was not a believer, in fact his bible bashing outbursts at his trial at Trim were to cause him big problems as he had been acquitted on strong evidence and a unanimous verdict of not guilty of robbing the mail coach to Galway, but his secular views at the court were to see his innocent verdict overturned by those upset at his religious views, without a shred of new evidence being produced!
The chronicle is unique in being able to support much of the general substance of the views you appear to support, but not without some little devils in the details! The chronicle mostly alludes to the time before the escape of the Isrealites from Egypt- there are references to floods of Philistinian refugees arriving in Iberia around the time the first Israeli kings were recorded in the Bible. The inference is that much of Celtic Europe was shaped by the migrations out of Aoi-mag (a region:plain, not city) of kindred tribes to the Gaal brought by Phoenicians to work mines for their Egyptian overlords. The first mention of Israel by that name comes in the time of Tigernmas soon after the conquest of Ireland (the chronicle alludes to Ish-baal and her father, who was confirmed as historical in the 1940s when his sarcophagus was found with his chronicled name on it).
There must have been some mixing between the Phoenician and Hebrew populations of Israel so perhaps this might explain the traditions so well documented in the Bible?
You open your page 'This article concerns the Chronicles of Eri. The Chronicles are a mixture of fantasy, mistaken scholarship, and genuine tradition of some value'. I have collected much to support your last point here but hope you may be able to help with the first two? I have collected hundreds of different points of the chronicle confirmed by subsequent science, but have so far failed to uncover a single detail no matter how trivial that can be proven in error, so should be interested in anything you can point to in support of the first two views.
You question why the Danaan of the chronicles age inferred as Angles, there are various reasons for this, they are labelled as tuatha (northerners) the chronicle uses another word for people; they were said to hail from sinking lands in the Dogger bank or Frisian island area, and more important all the chronicled Danaan words may be seen as Norse e.g stan-stone clidden-clod:clot and names are also of a Norse ilk e.g. Thorl, Scandt etc. In addition many chronicled places associated with them were later alluded to as sites of the Danes even though they date centuries before the Viking era. Their hardware which follows them into Connaught after the MBA is distinctively angled or twisted in the Norse tradition, but not a trait of the Gaelic hardware. (Sorry that doesn't sit easily with the old stories advocated regarding the tribe of Dan, though the Danaan were only chronicled in Erin 2 00 years before the Gaels, and Norse tradition claims they first migrated to Denmark from the Levant after the Trojan wars)
Best regards
Guy Lestrange