No, read it again.
The substance of my question (not statement) was that a group of people seem intimidated by a particular question.
I did not make a statement. I did not make an assertion.
I’m happy to go back to asking the question again, but only after you reorganize your thinking for the purpose of understanding my post.
Your question contains a noun phrase as a direct object, in bold, which "states" and "asserts" a fact. It matters not that you posed this statement within a question because your usage invites the reader to rely upon your apparent belief in its truth.
So my initial response to why historians seem, at least to you, to be "intimidated" by the fact you assert, i.e. that a traditionally Hebraic population of Ireland and Britain exists or existed, is that your asserted fact is contrary the genetic anthropological evidence, which is so legion and easy to find that I will not waste my time trying to explain it to you.
The other more apparent reason for this intimidation you perceive, less apparent to me quite obviously, is that historians are quite good at avoiding pointless discussions with wackadoodles like you that spout propositions that are unmoored to fact or reality.
I have invited you to state a factual basis for your assertion that "a traditionally Hebraic population of Ireland and Britain" exist or ever existed. You have not. So our discussion is over.