1. Lactose Tolerance and Gluten Intolerance
may not be acceptable?
"Brit-Am Now"-870
#2. DNA. More on Lactose Tolerance
Contained the following information:

The Ancient Israelites were promised "A LAND FLOWING WITH MILK AND HONEY" [Exodus 3:8].
This indicated that the Ancient Israelites were probably lactose tolerant.

We suggested keeping the following possibilities (facts?) in mind for possible future reference:
a. Ancient non-lactose tolerant Europeans were not the ancestors of modern lactose-tolerant Europeans
b. Ancient Israelites were lactose tolerant
c. North Europeans are also lactose tolerant

<<Interesting that the Swedes have the highest percent lactose tolerance when

<<Swedes have a lot of Coeliac disease compared even to Danes. Must be a link
to dna I would say. So Swedes show intolerance of glutens/cereals.

The Problem:
It was implied that some kind of correspondence existed in Sweden
between lactose tolerance and gluten (cereal) intolerance.

[Note this thread is not really suggesting anything.
Just throwing ideas around]

The Israelites were promised a land flowing with milk and honey suggesting
that they were a lactose tolerant population.
Most lactose-tolerance populations in the Middle East and Africa
are herdsmen and the Israelites when they came into Egypt had been herdsmen.

As well as being promised a "land flowing with milk and honey"
the Israelites were also promised plentiful grain implying gluten tolerance.

For our hypothetical tentative new physical criteria to hold and be consistent
we would therefore need both lactose and gluten tolerance
or a credible explanation as to why one might still be pertinent and not the other.

Oh well, there goes another "scientific" breakthrough.
Or does it?

2. NZ Soldier Flew First Jewish Flag in Jerusalem
In 1917 the British forces that conquered (then) Palestine included a contingent of Anzac soldiers. Among them was a Jewish soldier from New Zealand named Louis Salek. While serving in Egypt he had made contact with the local Jewish community and was given a Jewish flag, half blue and half white, with a Star of David in the middle.
In December 1917, Allenby, the British commander, made his official entry into Jerusalem on foot, through the Jaffa Gate. Corporal Louis Salek (Za"L) who had prepared for the moment and had the flag in his backpack, quietly detached himself from the soldiers and climbed up to the top of David's Tower and flew the flag! As a result for the first 20 minutes of the official ceremony in Jerusalem of the British conquest of Palestine, a Jewish flag was flying from David's Tower. The local Jewish population fuss about it and after 20 minutes the British ordered that it be taken down. The moment was felt to have great spiritual and historical significance by all the Jews who saw it. In July 1992 the flag was donated by the Salek family to the Museum situated in the Tower of David and there it can be seen to this day.
Shmuel Treister (of Tsefat in Israel)

The source for this information
appears to be an article,
"The flag waved free" in
Jerusalem Post Magazine, 23 May 1990.
It is quoted in
"Anzacs, Empires and Israel's Restoration
1798-1948", Kelvin Crombie, 1998, Australia.

3. Dafydd Cotter: Sundry Items:
The first Jewish Flag? Amish; Australia and US-Manasseh, Canada and UK-Ephraim?
Joseph:Tartan and Tomb? The Coming Fall of Europe? Brit-Am Comments

From: Dafydd <dafydd@iinet.net.au>
Subject: A few things...

Dear Yair,

Greetings and Shalom from Sinim.

I haven't had an opportunity to write recently due to various commitments, but I have been keeping up to date with your Brit-Am Now messages. I would like to compliment your readers/contributors for their highly informative comments and contributions recently, and thank you for your ongoing research and dedication.

I would like to post a few comments, which I'll keep as brief as possible.

(1. To Shaul in New Zealand, my greetings to you. You inquired some time ago about a Jewish private soldier in the New Zealand Army who was the first person to fly the Magen David flag over Jerusalem, at the time of General Allenby's arrival during WW I...this flag (the soldier's prayer cloth) would be of historical interest to the State of Israel if it could be found.

This may not have been the first Magen David flag to fly in Jerusalem though. I understand that the Khazarians raised an army to join the Crusades, and they fought under the Magen David flag. The next time a Jewish
"army" fought under the Magen David flag was in the brave Warsaw ghetto uprising in 1943.

The city of Jerusalem was captured by the 10th Australian Light Horse Regiment from my present home town, Perth, Western Australia. They went in to secure the city prior to General Allenby's arrival. Fighting was limited,
the Turks had largely moved on, and resistance was limited to some rear-guard skirmishes. For the history buffs, an account of the capture of Jerusalem can be found at the Australian War Memorial's web site
(http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/8/chapters/30.pdf ).

To Shaul, there were three New Zealanders who were part of the 10th Australian Light Horse Regiment, but none of them were Jews. A small number of New Zealand soldiers were brought up to Jerusalem from Gaza for Allenby's arrival, I suspect that our mysterious Jewish private soldier with the Magen David prayer cloth was amongst their number.

(2. Some commentators here have speculated recently on the Amish people's background, ie., are they of Dutch or German background. I spent some time in the USA again recently and had the pleasure of meeting with some of the Amish people in central Ohio. The Amish are a break-away group from the Mennonites, and they came to the USA from Switzerland and southern Germany. There are some Dutch anabaptists amongst them, but they are predominantly of Swiss and German background. They use a dual translation (German / English) Lutheran Bible, and are some of the finest people I've ever had the pleasure of meeting.

(3. I spent some time in New York and travelled up-state with a kinsman of yours, though he is a secular Jew. He has visited Australia (he covered the Sydney Olympics for an American Jewish newspaper), and he believes that the Australians and the Americans are the same people. I made the comment that I believed that the Canadians and Americans were more closely related, but he believes otherwise, stating that the Canadians were more like the English, and the Australians were the same as the Americans. He said on a recent visit to Sydney he had to spend a few hours in China-Town to get the feeling of the exotic, otherwise it's the same as home for him.

I found this observation interesting. I do agree with you that the USA is predominantly of Manasseh and Australia of Ephraim, but the differences are minor, and both brothers live side by side. I have been contemplating the differences between the sons of Joseph in Australia, and would like to post a table of the differences (as I perceive them) at a latter date.

(4. On the topic of Joseph, are you aware of the palace of Joseph in Goshen?. Two very interesting points here - you mentioned some time ago that the Rabbis say Joseph's "coat of many colours" was most likely a tartan, this does appear to be the case. The other interesting point (interesting to me anyway) was the cause of the seven year famine in Egypt, which was averted by Joseph's dream. I was always under the impression that this famine resulted from a seven year drought; the opposite appears to be the case, ie., the Nile flooded for seven years. See... http://www.levitt.com/essays/joseph.html

The destruction of Joseph's tomb in Nablus by the "Palestinians" is an event which still causes me great personal sadness. I don't believe that I am of Joseph (based on your positioning of the tribes, and my understanding of my genealogy), but the burning and destruction of his tomb, after thousands of years, is a distressing and sickening event.

Just a thought - if the sons of Joseph, whether they be in England or the USA, Canada or New Zealand, Australia or elsewhere, were to realise that they are the descendants of Joseph, and if they were aware of the violation and destruction of their father's tomb - I am sure that one million plus armed and determined young men would volunteer to bring their father's tomb back into the State of Israel. I salute Judah for their efforts and loss of life to preserve this sacred place, but Judah does need Joseph to fight these battles.

And the sons of Joseph also need to give honour to their father.

Joseph's tomb is part of Israel, even the hateful Oslo Accords give this land to Israel, it's time for Joseph's sons to stand up and do the right thing. An account of the destruction can be found at http://www.shechem.org/kyos/engkyos.html

(5. Just a final point if I may. In your latest Jerusalem News you posted Daniel Pipe's article about the Islamisation of Europe http://britam.org/jerusalem/JerusalemNewsPage.html#Dani. I received the same article a day or two prior, and noted Pipes' concluding remark.... "No large territory has ever shifted from one civilisation to another by virtue of a collapsed population, faith, and identity...."

I don't know your thoughts on this, but I see a historical mirror being held up to the northern tribes in their diaspora. Israel (Samaria) fell to the Assyrians, it does appear that they will fall again to the Ishmaelites. On both occasions, it was the absence of faith in Almighty God which brought them into captivity. I fear that continental Europe will enter into dhimmitude in our lifetimes.

My very best wishes,

Dafydd Cotter

Brit-Am Comments:
(1) The Khazars using the Magen David as their flag and seeking to join the Crusaders appears to
be the equivalent of an Urban Legend.
David El Roi a Kurdish Jew who tried to establish some degree of Jewish Independence
may have used it as symbol.
The Khazars may have given rise to all kinds of legends about the Ten Tribes coming from the
east in some versions to fight against the Christians and in others to help them.
It would be interested to examine those legends that depicted the Ten Tribes in a positive manner
and see where they came from.
Look at our short article:
Red Jews - or 'The Lost Ten Tribes?'
http://britam.org/redjews.html
(4) Rohl's reconstruction of the "Joseph" statue is interesting but it has been criticized
even by his own followers.
Joseph definitely is buried in the Land of Israel in Schechem.

<<And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence. So Joseph died, being an hundred and ten years old: and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt. (Genesis 50:25­26)

<<And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him: for he had straitly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you. (Exodus 13:19)

The so-called Tomb of Joseph however may not necessarily be the real tomb
of Joseph. It could be an old tomb of an Arab "Sheik" that became ascribed somehow
to Joseph. Or a Druze holy site (as has been claimed) that became associated with Joseph.
Such things happen. Or it could be the site where the real Joseph is buried.
Some of our followers may not like us even entertaining the thought that there could be doubts
on the matter. There are may be spiritual mystical reasons as to why the site is identified with Joseph.
These matters are beyond us.
Brit-Am gets where it is (as far as it gets anywhere) by telling things as we see them
one way or the other.
Whatever the case the building became associated with Joseph in the eyes of both
the Jewish and Arab populations.
The Jews sanctified it, made it a place of pilgrimage, and a center of learning.
In 1996 six Israeli soldiers were killed defending the Tomb of Joseph.
In 2000 the Arabs destroyed the tomb and a Druze soldier, Yusuf [i.e. Joseph] Mahdat,
in Israeli service was scandalously left
to bleed to death because the Israelis relied on a Palestinian promise that they would allow
his evacuation. [At the time it was not known that the soldier was Druze.
It was thought he was Jewish, as if that made it acceptable!]
The Arabs destroyed the tomb because it had become associated with the Patriarch Joseph.
The point is that ALL Schechem is part of Israel in the territory of Joseph and Joseph is buried there.
As for Joseph fighting the battles the time will doubtless come as predicted by the Prophets.
For now the young men of Joseph would help the cause of Israel more by getting married and raising
Bible-conscious pro-Israel families.
In the meantime it is the task of Judah to prepare the way.
Judah has difficulty holding onto the land partly because of "Joseph".
On the one hand "Joseph) (especially the USA) does support Judah.
On the other hand "Joseph" is constantly pressuring Israel to give into the Palestinians to compromise etc.
Judah needs international support and assistance and so must take consideration
of the US postion.
In addition the US to some degree and West European nations including Israelite
ones (such as Finland) subsidize to a very generous degree Quisling elements within
Israeli society and politics as well as giving outright support to Palestinian Nazi-type elements.

4. DNA. John McEwan: Lactose Tolerance and Pastoralism
The following note by John McEwan was sent in by C. Koch.
John McEwan is a leading DNA researcher from Ireland.
The note below is somewhat technical.
It says in effect that lactose tolerance enhances chances of survival
by allowing the adult drinking of milk and therefore more efficient
utilization of a pastoral economy.
It arouse two problems:
a. Lactose tolerance is found throughout Northern Europe
and attributed to the same inherited gene. It is not something that evolved
independently in different peoples reacting to similar environmental circumstances.
It therefore spread by inheritance.
b. The spread of lactose tolerance is recent and came after
the major divisions of different DNA haplotypes.
c. The spread of lactose tolerance should be accompanied
by the finding of a common haplotype in the relevant areas but it is not.

From: "C. Koch" <cheriekoch@hotmail.com>
Subject: Fw: [DNA] Lactose tolerance evolved recently
Shalom Yair,

This was incredibly interesting about northern Europeans, DNA, cows and
milk-drinking!

Cherie

Subject: Re: [DNA] Lactose tolerance evolved recently
Lawrence said
.........
Once again, the issue is the phenomenally rapid evolution of
milk-drinking
ability in northern Eurasia and its effect on demographics. <SNIP> Why
did this ability spread so rapidly within that tribe, culture, or
subregion? Did milk somehow become an absolutely necessary staple food
among that population? Or did milk-drinking confer a tremendous
competitive
advantage--economically or militarily, for example?
.........

I may be just reiterating points already made on this long "braided"
thread. If so I apologise, I have tried searching the archives but these
points seem not to have been made or if they were have not been clearly
reinforced.

The first is why is there an "advantage" to the variant allele. Well in
the recent paper by Tishkoff et al (2006) if you examine the tables
closely actually estimates the selection coefficient in a variety of
milk drinking populations for lactase persistence and find a value
consistently of ~0.035-0.097. In simple terms this means the wildtype
are slightly (4-10%) less viable than the variant allele homozygote. The
reasons for this? To quote the paper.

"The ability to digest
milk as adults is likely to be adaptive owing to the increased
nutritional
benefits from milk (carbohydrates as well as fat, protein and calcium)
and also because milk is an important source of water in arid
regions. Considering the symptoms of lactose intolerance,
which includes water loss from diarrhoea, individuals who had the
lactase persistence-associated alleles and could tolerate milk could
have
had a very strong selective advantage. This is supported by our high
estimates for the selection coefficient (s ~ 0.035-0.097). Because the
selective force, adult milk consumption, is associated with the cultural
development of cattle domestication, the recent and rapid spread of
the lactase persistence-associated alleles, together with the practice
of pastoralism in East Africa, is an excellent example of ongoing
adaptation
in humans and coevolution of genes and culture."

Now to me this statement clearly identifies 1) better nutritional use of
milk and 2) lower level of diarrhoea. Given the historically high death
rates in due to diarrhoea, particularly in recently weaned children this
explanation rings true. Why especially in Northern Europe? Well they had
an agricultural society, but grain crops were often difficult to grow
and harvest, were restricted in species that grew well, and subject to
"bad years". They consequently also had a pastoral society, where cattle
for meat and as draft animals was important. We should specifically note
that milk, also produces more edible nutrients per hectare that meat. To
quote " Milk production systems worldwide can support on average about
2.5 times as many people per hectare as could be supported by beef or
mutton production systems (Spedding, 1979, p. 130)."

None of this is new, but all add to a compelling argument that people
that could digest lactose had an advantage in Northern Europe
particularly when food sources were tight, grain crops had failed,
diarrhoeal diseases were prevalent in times of undernutrition, and/or
land resources were limited. We don't need to invoke economics or
military conquest. Another paper that reinforces this is Modiano et al
2007 in EJHG who make a strong case that the selection in Northern
European populations for higher frequencies of the cystic fibrosis
variant is actually due to its heterozygote advantage against diarrhoeal
diseases (such as those caused by drinking milk in lactose intolerant
people..). They also show a strong positive correlation between CF
variant and lactase variant frequency in various European populations.
They state

" The question then arises: 'Why the
various European populations are all
adapted to a dairy milk diet mainly with
the same CF allele (F508del) instead of
being each adapted with its own CF
allele(s)?'
The simplest and most economical
explanation is that a dairy-milk diet
became established in a single area and
remained restricted to that area for a
period of time sufficient to allow the T
and the F508del alleles to attain high
values. Then, in a second phase, the
population of that area exported to the
rest of Europe its dairy-milk diet culture"

Perhaps more relevant to the debate here is their other comment

" As to the identification of the 'donor
area', there is no doubt that by far the best
candidate is Northern Europe, where these
alleles have their highest frequencies.
This is perfectly in line with the proposal
of Beja-Pereira et al. (based on data on
six milk protein genes of cows), according
to which dairy cow breeding was first
developed in Northern Europe.
This interpretation is consistent with
the highly significant (P<0.001) positive
correlation between the LCT*T frequency
and the proportion, among the CF alleles,
of the F508del allele, as shown in Figure 1,
and would account for the well-known
F508del allele frequency north-south
cline."

Lawrence also asked
.......
Since that first population to drink milk must have consisted more of
some <Y> haplogroup(s) than others, and that population spread its
genetic ability to drink milk across most of northern Eurasia within a short
period, how did the haplogroup percentages across northern Eurasia change as a
result?
....

I don't know, it is possible but it has to survive 2 tests
* haplogroups today would have to have significant associations with
both CF and lactase tolerance. This is present on a global scale, but I
don't know about within Europe. My knowledge of say R1b1c7 and R1b1c9
distribution (both mutations predate milk drinking and both heavy milk
drinkers in Northern Europe but also geographically constrained) suggest
not actually.
* We are talking at least 150 generations and a s value of ~0.05 so any
interbreeding of the founder group (culture) of even quite low magnitude
would rapidly degrade any such association. Thus we have to also invoke
a "cultural apartheid" scenario on both the male and female lineages. My
personal opinion is the effect may be present in some form but is not
massive.

In summary, at least two strands of evidence point to diarrhoeal disease
resistance as the "advantage". Milk would also have been a critical
foodstuff in times of poor harvests and or limited land resources. I am
not going to enter into the argument of where milking cattle originated,
it may have appeared several times independently, but it clearly assumed
much more importance to the diet of those in Northern Europe.

Cheers

John McEwan

5. What does have Brit-Am have against Bnei Noach?
What is "Bnei Yoseph"?
We have nothing against Bnei Noach. Some of our sympathizers belong to
Bnei Noach.
We consider them a good and legitimate movement.
We wish them well as we have said several times.
We have however our own reservations and do not consider them an
answer in accordance with Brit-Am researches.
Bnei Noach take the approach that they are Gentiles and no different from other Gentiles
except they are consciously taking upon themselves the obligations that all Gentiles should have.
Brit-Am prefers the concept of "Bnei Yoseph" i.e. Children of Joseph.
A good proportion of "righteous converts" to Judaism considers themselves
to be of Jewish ancestry and in a sense to be returning.
So too, Bnei Yoseph take the approach that they are returning
to what should have been if the Ten Tribes had not Lost consciousness of their origins.
The questions that follow are:
(a) How do "Bnei Yoseph" know they descend from "Joseph" (meaning any one of the Lost Ten Tribes
or Captive Jews)? and
(b) What are "Bnei Yoseph" returning to?

In answer to
(a) Individuals amongst "Bnei Yoseph" may not know for sure that they descend from "Joseph" but through Brit-Am type studies they can reach a reasonable degree of probability. It is unlikely that anyone
could belong to particular societies and not have some genetic admixture
from major contributors to those societies.
Even however if they themselves turn out not to be descended from "Joseph"
they identify with those who are and will be encompassed by them.

(b) What "Bnei Yoseph" should or should not "return to" is not the field of
Brit-Am. Some will find their "return" through emphasizing the "Hebrew Roots"
of Christianity; others through their own version of being Righteous
Gentiles according to Halacha (Rabbinical Law) while deepening their
Bnei Yoseph consciousness; still others may convert to Judaism.
Whatever path they take we believe that if they do it faithfully
they will ultimately find the right track and that this is the will of the
Almighty.

The importance of Brit-Am is in showing the way and heightening the
degree of acceptable probability.
It is unlikely that someone could consider themselves part of "Bnei Yoseph"
without some degree of Brit-Am consciousness.
Even though Brit-Am relies heavily on the Bible, Rabbinical Studies, and legends
along with relevant Secular Studies, Brit-Am in its own way is a science.
<<Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.>>
Albert Einstein.

God willing we will write a more complete article on the subject of "Bnei Yoseph" later.
Brit-Am has received some support in the past and does receive some support at present.
The achievements of Brit-Am are more than commensurate with
the support it has received.
If it is wished that Brit-Am achieve more both in Judah and Joseph
then increased support for Brit-Am is the answer.