Jeremy Corbyn’s new party: what does it mean, and what attitude should communists take towards it? The announcement by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana of a new party on Thursday has provoked a strong wave of support and enthusiasm. In itself, this was not surprising. The reactionary policies pursued by the Starmer government had been a slap in the face for millions of people who voted for the Labour Party, hoping for a change. In a remarkably short space of time, having won a landslide electoral victory, Starmer has become the most unpopular prime minister of all time. He is particularly detested by people on the left, who rightly regard him as a traitor who is virtually indistinguishable from the Tories and Liberals. To the left of Labour a yawning gulf has opened up, a huge political vacuum, which, sooner or later, had to be filled. Given the weakness of the forces of genuine Marxism at the present time, that vacuum could only be filled by some kind of left reformist alternative. It was therefore quite natural that it should be filled by former Labour leader and left reformist, Jeremy Corbyn. To anyone with the slightest knowledge of British politics at the present time, such an outcome could not be a surprise. It was, in fact, entirely predictable. Within hours, thousands of people were signing up to join the new party. Given the total lack of any viable alternative, this again was hardly surprising, For a long time, the so-called lefts in Britain and internationally have been paralysed by a mood of dejection and pessimism They only saw reaction on all sides. Lacking any knowledge of dialectics, they could only see the surface of events, but were blind to the real processes of radicalisation that are taking place. This applies to Jeremy Corbyn as much as anyone else. While we salute his decision finally to launch a new party, we must also add that this development was held up for a long time by his constant vacillations and hesitation to take this decisive step.
https://marxist.com/jeremy-corbyn-s-new-party-what-does-it-mean-and-what-attitude-should-communists-take-towards-it.htmInternal Documents Detail Hamas Proposals That Preceded Trump’s Belligerent RantLast Wednesday, after consulting with a range of Palestinian political leaders and groups as well as regional mediators from Qatar and Egypt, negotiators from Hamas submitted a handful of precisely-crafted amendments to the latest Gaza ceasefire framework. Hamas had already agreed to the vast majority of the thirteen-point framework and had been informed by mediators that Israel had done the same. Drop Site News obtained a series of documents from the negotiations in Doha showing the terms Hamas proposed to amend, as well as the maps for Israeli troop redeployments presented to Hamas by regional mediators alongside the maps counter-proposed by Hamas. “We were faced with two options: either agree to a weak, rushed agreement—where Israel could control the aid, impose wide buffer zones covering 40–50% of Gaza, ensure the possibility of resuming war, and add many other unjust conditions—or hold out for a good agreement,” said Ghazi Hamad, a senior Hamas leader and a member of its negotiating team, in a TV interview Saturday with Al Araby. “We chose to be patient and stand firm so we could reach a good deal.” Hamas officials said they were bewildered at the public response from the Trump administration. On Friday, Trump launched into a belligerent tirade on the White House lawn as he prepared to embark on a trip to Europe. “Hamas didn’t really want to make a deal. I think they want to die, and it’s very, very bad. It got to be to a point where you’re going to have to finish the job,” Trump declared. “Now we’re down to the final hostages and they know what happens after you get the final hostages and basically because of that they really didn’t want to make a deal. I saw that. They’re gonna have to fight, and they’re gonna have to clean it up. You’re gonna have to get rid of ‘em.” Addressing Hamas’s leadership, Trump said, "I think they will be hunted down." Hamas officials said they were surprised by Trump’s comments and those of Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. “What Hamas presented—both in word and deed—represented a positive, realistic, and flexible position. We offered a vision for all the issues on the table, whether related to maps, prisoner exchange mechanisms, aid, or guarantees for continuing negotiations beyond the 60-day period,” said Hamad. “That’s why the American position was surprising; it was tense and rigid, offering no explanations. Instead, it relied on the language of threats and intimidation.”
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/negotiations-hamas-israel-trump-netanyahu-ceasefire-amendments-hayya-netanyahuVoice of TKP: Turkey-Iran Relations on the Neo-Ottoman Axis The war triggered by Israel’s attacks on Iran and intensified by Iran’s retaliation lasted for 12 days. Although short-lived, this war marked a significant turning point in world politics. It is essential to analyze this conflict from various angles, including what it means for the relationship between Turkey and Iran. Turkey and Iran are two of the most powerful countries in the Middle East. A look at history reveals that the relationship between these two countries has experienced many ups and downs. Even during the most cooperative periods, underlying tensions have always been present. It would not be an exaggeration to say that such tensions also surfaced during the 12-day Iran-Israel war. The AKP government in Turkey has, for quite some time, preferred to maintain a balanced relationship with the countries in the region — including Iran. A similar approach, at least on the surface, was displayed during the recent war as well. In fact, toward the end of the conflict, on June 21, Iranian government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani made a statement expressing appreciation for the clear and determined stance of four countries. The countries she named were Russia, China, Pakistan, and Turkey. However, the situation is far from that simple. The AKP government had played a significant role in the regime changes in Iraq and Libya. In the subsequent civil war in Libya, it openly supported one of the warring factions and helped prevent that side’s defeat. Later, Turkey also developed relations with the opposing side, and to this day, its influence over the country remains. More recently, the AKP government played a major role in efforts to remove the Ba’ath regime from power in Syria. For years, Turkey openly supported many of the Islamist groups fightingagainst the Assad government. All of these initiatives were products of a foreign policy approach commonly referred to as Neo-Ottomanism. Claiming to inherit the legacy of the Ottoman Empire, the AKP government developed a reflex of ownership over all the lands once ruled by the Ottomans, referring to them as the “Ottoman legacy.” This Neo-Ottoman policy, of course, did not stem merely from a nostalgic longing for the pre-Republican past or for previous centuries — it was driven by very contemporary needs. Turkey’s advanced capitalist economy was seeking to expand beyond its borders and create new spheres of influence. Turkey aspired to climb higher within the imperialist hierarchy, and this policy aligned closely with that ambition. It was clear that a regime change in Syria would have far-reaching consequences. So far, the greatest blow has been dealt to the Palestinian resistance, as Assad’s Syria had served as a vital gateway for that struggle. After Syria, it was evident that Iran would be next. The Neo-Ottoman policy played a significant role in reaching this point. Neo-Ottomanism seeks to use imperialism’s attempts to reshape the Middle East, seeing them as major opportunities. In this new Middle East — where borders, balances, and alliances are beginning to shift — Turkey aims to carve out new spheres of influence for itself.
https://www.idcommunism.com/2025/07/turkey-iran-relations-on-neo-ottoman-axis.html