The British Labour Party achieved an historic victory. The party has not enjoyed such an overwhelming advantage over competing parties for many years.
For them to achieve that so soon after their party had been riddled in widespread anti-Semitism under its then leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is so remarkable that a deeper dive into the figures and the facts are required.
First, they achieved their victory with a very low voter turnout. Only 60% of the disgruntled voting public cast their ballots.
Surprisingly, despite the number of seats gained, Labour did it with fewer votes in absolute terms than under the reviled Corbyn.
Under Corbyn in 2017, Labour garnered almost thirteen million votes (12,877,916), 40% of the total.
Under Starmer, Labour received less than ten million votes, and only 34% of the total.
In other words, Labour won more seats despite losing voters.
Apparently, most of the migrant vote went elsewhere.
In a number of constituencies with large numbers of Muslim voters they abandoned their prior allegiance to a heavily Socialist Labour Party in favor of independent parties, four moving to Gaza-promoting independent parties.
In one particular constituency, the pro-Gaza vote swung the vote away from a strong Labour incumbent, Jonathan Ashford, who had enjoyed a 22,000-vote advantage in the last election, losing to a new candidate that ran on the message “this is for Gaza!”
Another Labour MP who lost her seat was Heather Iqbal in Dewsbury and Batley, to independent candidate Iqbal Mohamed, whose key focus was Gaza.
In Blackburn, Labour’s Kate Hollern lost to Adnan Hussain, who promised his voters, “I will make your concerns against the injustice being inflicted against the people of Gaza be heard in the places where our so-called representatives failed.”
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, running a campaign as an independent strongly emphasizing his pro-Palestinian Arab, anti-Israel, proclivities, retained his long-held seat of Islington North in London beating his Labour rival by more than 7,000 votes.
It was not an across-the-board victory for pro-Gaza candidates. In Rochdale, Labour’s Paul Waugh managed to defeat radical Workers Party leader George Galloway, just months after he had won the seat in a shock February by-election dominated by the Gaza war.
In the Labour safe seat of Tottenham, the new Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, won a majority but saw his vote share plummet by 20 points, with some interpret as a result of this party’s neutral stance on Gaza.
Lammy may have some correcting to do when it comes to Britain’s relations with the United, should Trump win the November US Presidential Election.
Lammy, a close friend of Barrack Obama, tried to correct an earlier slip of the tongue when he once called Trump a "woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathizing sociopath," by recently described him as "misunderstood."
The new Foreign Minister has already been put on notice by an anti-Israel independent MP about Israel.
Nandita Lal said that “Lammy must now publish the legal advice on whether Israel is breaking international law that he called on the Conservatives to publish, and halt arms sales.”
That wasn’t just pro-Palestinian Arab. That was anti-Israel as that country battles Iranian proxies, including Palestinian terror groups who have declared a collective and individual genocidal commitment against the Jewish State.
Lal even threatened to throw the new Foreign Secretary in jail, saying, “It’s been obvious for many months that UK military exports are being used to commit war crimes in Gaza. The UK has a legal duty to prevent and punish the crime of genocide, so if Lammy fails to halt this deadly trade, he could end up in prison.”
Welcome to the new style of speech that is being introduced into the UK Parliament with this new brand of politics.
However, Foreign Secretary Lammy may be regretting his statement prior to the election made after the ICC threatened an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
He said, “Arrest warrants are not a conviction or a determination of guilt, but they reflect the evidence and judgment of the prosecutor about the grounds for individual criminal responsibility.”
Lammy needs an urgent course in diplomacy, unless this is the official line of the new Labour Government in Britain.
Today, there are a lot more new Members of the British Parliament representing Palestinian and Islamic interests. These numbers will increase and have more influence, given the expanding migrant population, in local and national elections.
It seems the loyalties of migrant voters do not rest solidly in Britain to where they ran for refuge but that they imported their biases from their places of origin.
Most of the pro-Palestinian Arab migrants, who made their voices heard in the recent election, arrived in Britain from places ruled by dictators and despots. Most never saw a Jew in their lives before arriving in Britain, and in Britain, most live in closed communities where there aren’t any Jews.
Yet they harbor an anti-Jewish form of anti-Israelism now being exploited and promoted by new community leaders who are riding into the British Parliament for the first time.
They represent a migrant constituency that imported with them a culture of religious hatred they did not abandon as they fled Middle Eastern and north African regimes bringing their biases with them into countries they claim to have entered for shelter and absorption, including Britain.
Add to that, the encouragement they get from their local religious and cultural leaders to adopt and promote dawah as an enriching element in their frustrated lives.
An essential part of that dawah is the Islamic principle that Britain in currently the House of Karb (War) and the duty of every Muslim to convert that land into the House of Islam (Peace).
This is the crux of the European, British, and increasingly, American, Canadian, Australian experiences, though these countries have not woken up to the concept.
The host countries thought they were absorbing the stranger, but the stranger is increasingly feeling empowered by their growing numbers and are insisting that the indigenous population bow to their political demands, which precede their ultimate religious demands.
In Britain, this realization gave rise to the Reform UK party formed by Nigel Farage who was dismayed by the Conservative Party’s ineffectiveness in tackling the immigration problem. Farage was came to power on a Brexit policy based on controlling immigration into Britain.
The unsustainably high immigration and the visible economic degradation of the country has caused a major political rift in Britain, as it has throughout Europe.
It is a daunting task, if not impossible, to move an economical and cultural underclass in their ghettos and have them absorb into the liberal British bloodstream.
However, in Britain, other cultures made that difficult transition, whether they originated from eastern Europe, from Asia, or from the Caribbean.
It may sound a strange but positive note to end on, but if tiny Israel, against a backdrop of wars and terror, has managed to absorb millions of people from Eastern Europe, France, India, Africa, Yemen Ethiopia, Middle Eastern countries, whether they be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Druze, Bahai, yet Israel advanced to become a global leader in technology, agriculture, medicine, science, so can Britain successfully ride the wave of a seemingly impossible migration problem.
It comes with anyone entering the country committing to contributing to the founding principles of the country of their adoption.
Barry Shaw is at the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.