SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
collective punishment
‘Collective Punishment’: Israel Halts All Humanitarian Aid to Gaza in Retaliation for Iran Strikes
"Aid is not a political tool and should not be weaponized in this way," said an advocate at Save the Children. "The survival and needs of children in Gaza should not have to answer to airstrikes elsewhere."
Jun 08, 2026
In an act described as "collective punishment" against two million Palestinians, Israel announced that it would close off the main entry points for humanitarian aid into Gaza indefinitely in retaliation for strikes launched this weekend by Iran.
Iran launched missiles at Israel on Sunday in response to Israel's bombing of a densely populated Beirut suburb, which killed civilians and violated a June 1 agreement not to bomb Lebanon's capital.
In addition to retaliating with new strikes on Iran, Israel’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) said on Sunday that “a number of necessary security measures have been implemented” following the missile fire, “including the closure of the crossings into the Gaza Strip, among them the Kerem Shalom Crossing and the Rafah Crossing, until further notice.”
COGAT claimed that closing the crossings "will not affect the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip" because "the substantial quantities of food that have entered the strip since the beginning of the ceasefire significantly exceed the nutritional needs of the population, according to [United Nations] methodologies."
That is not what actual UN reports say. The World Food Program (WFP) estimated in June that about 1.6 million people living in Gaza, more than three-quarters of the population, were "facing high levels of acute food insecurity" despite the entry of food parcels and other aid since the October 2025 "ceasefire" between Israel and Hamas.
In the first half of May, UN workers identified more than 2,000 cases of acute malnutrition among young children, according to a June report from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
That same OCHA report said about 678,000 hot meals were delivered in May, down from 1.5 million per day in mid-March as a result of underfunding and due to Israel's closures and restrictions at certain entry points. The number of people receiving food parcels in May also dropped to about 820,000, down from 1.1 million in March. The rations that were distributed in May covered only about 75% of the average person's minimum daily caloric needs, while those distributed in March covered about 50%.
While the amount of aid entering the strip has increased since the ceasefire went into effect, UN data has never suggested that the amount entering "exceeds" the needs of Palestinians. Since the truce began, reports have consistently said the amount of aid entering the strip was only reaching part of the population, and that aid packages only contained part of the needed nutritional value, which did not meet the terms of the agreement.
Israel, which has been accused of using starvation as a "weapon of war" against Gaza by UN bodies and major human rights groups, previously closed all crossings into the strip at the start of its military assault against Iran in late February.
This not only halted the entry of food and medical aid but also blocked medical evacuations for sick and injured Palestinians, which were desperately needed due to Israel’s destruction of Gaza’s medical system. Even as entry points reopened in the following weeks, aid entry never returned to previous levels.
COGAT said on Monday that "the crossings will be reopened gradually, subject to an ongoing operational assessment and under security restrictions designed to ensure the safety of all personnel present at the crossings on both sides," though it provided no clear timeframe or indication of how much aid would be allowed in.
“Aid is not a political tool and should not be weaponized in this way. The survival and needs of children in Gaza should not have to answer to airstrikes elsewhere,” said Ahmad Alhendawi, Save the Children’s regional director for the Middle East, North Africa, and Eastern Europe in a statement on Monday.
“For nearly three years, Gaza has been pummelled so hard by Israeli airstrikes that nothing can grow there and people have been reliant on the already small amount of aid crossing the border—aid that was never enough and is now totally out of reach,” he added. “Children in Gaza have already been starved by design. They should not now be denied water, medicine, shelter, and the other essentials needed to survive. The Israeli authorities must re-open these crossings immediately, lift the siege, and facilitate the safe delivery of humanitarian aid at scale.”
With Israeli leaders openly stating their goal in recent weeks to expand the nation's occupation of Gaza despite the ceasefire, international observers have suggested that Israel was using the escalation of hostilities with Iran as an excuse to ramp up its brutal treatment of Palestinians, nearly 1,000 of whom have been killed in the strip since the ceasefire went into effect.
The US-brokered ceasefire agreement signed by Israel and Hamas in October required the “full entry of humanitarian aid and relief” into the strip.
"The guarantors of the ceasefire must step in and force Israel to reopen the crossings, resume and triple the aid amounts, and totally stop any attacks on Gaza now," said Palestinian journalist Abubaker Abed. "This is their job. And they must uphold the ceasefire agreement."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The United States' Long War on Cuba
A US invasion would hardly inaugurate a new conflict. It would instead mark the bloodiest phase in a long, bipartisan war against Cuba for the “sin” of reclaiming national sovereignty.
May 15, 2026
In recent weeks and months, Washington has intensified its long-running campaign of collective punishment against the Cuban people. Escalating sanctions have further tightened the noose of a punitive US blockade that has strangled the island for more than half a century. The resulting “energy starvation” has deepened a manufactured crisis, threatening Cubans’ access to food, water, healthcare, fuel, electricity, and other basic human rights and needs, while intensifying the broader assault on the island’s sovereignty and development.
Since 2017, when the first Trump administration began dismantling the limited normalization measures introduced under former President Barack Obama, Cuba has once again been subjected to a regime of “maximum pressure” economic warfare. The consequences have been severe. These policies have degraded material conditions across the island, accelerated the exodus of more than 1 million Cubans, and imposed disproportionate suffering on the country’s most vulnerable populations.
This economic weapon, wielded by the ruling elites of the world’s largest financial and military power, has exacted particularly devastating consequences on mothers and children. During this period, the infant mortality rate rose from 4 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2018 to 9.9 in 2025. Put plainly, an estimated 1,800 Cuban infants died during these years who would have survived absent Washington’s intensified criminal sanctions. This is but one stark measure of the blockade’s profound brutality and inhumanity.
The only “crime” of these children, like that of countless other Cubans, was being born in a country that continues to insist on its right to determine its own political and economic future outside the structures of hemispheric domination the United States has sought to impose across Latin America, the Caribbean, and the wider world. The infliction of such suffering has never been incidental to such policies. It has been, and remains, a central feature.
It is time to end the madness of US policy toward Cuba and recognize that Cuba is not a failed state, but a state subjected to a criminal siege.
The same has been true since 1959, as Washington has pursued a singular, near-fanatical obsession with reversing the Cuban Revolution and restoring the neocolonial shackles it once imposed on the island. Its aim has been not only to undermine Cuba’s social transformation and internationalist commitments, but to extinguish the example the revolution represented: that an alternative to US hegemony and capitalist underdevelopment was possible.
So despite recent threats to “take” Cuba, such rhetoric cannot be understood in isolation, nor should it obscure a fundamental reality: A US invasion would hardly inaugurate a new conflict. It would instead mark the bloodiest phase in a long, bipartisan war against Cuba for the “sin” of reclaiming national sovereignty from a Washington-backed lawless order that has sought to punish Cuba for its defiance and refusal to submit meekly to the dictates of empire.
Cuba Under the Shadow of US Empire
Cuba’s independence has long been imperiled by its proximity to and economic entanglement with the United States. Situated 90 miles off the coast of Florida, the island occupied a central place within the US imperial imagination. Throughout the 19th century, Washington elites viewed Cuba not as a to-be sovereign nation, but as an inevitable extension of their commercial and geopolitical ambitions, a “crown jewel” destined to be drawn into Washington’s orbit.
The opportunity arrived in 1898. Seizing upon Cuba’s nearly victorious war for independence from Spain, the US intervened not to end empire in the hemisphere, but rather to inherit it. Washington presented its action as a selfless mission to secure Cuban liberation. But for many across the region, the contradictions were unmistakable. The US, itself forged in the crucible of empire, with all the violence and exploitation that project entailed, went to Cuba not to secure freedom, but to replace Madrid with Washington as the imperial metropole of the Americas.
As early as 1829, Simón Bolívar warned that “the United States seemed destined by Providence to plague America with misery in the name of freedom.” Decades later, Cuban revolutionary José Martí issued a similar denunciation. In his 1891 essay "Our America," he called for “common cause” among oppressed peoples and warned against the threat of subordination to the rising power to the north. Martí also championed self-sufficiency over integration into an unequal global capitalist system, insisting that Cuba must “make wine from plantains. It may be sour, but it is our wine!” Having spent years in exile in New York, Martí sharpened that critique shortly before his death in 1895, writing “I lived in the monster and I know its entrails.”
History would soon vindicate these words. As the United States extended its “Manifest Destiny” to foreign shores, it repeatedly intervened across the hemisphere, seeking to transform it into a de facto protectorate. In doing so, Washington consistently sided with the interests of capital and local elites over the demands for popular sovereignty. In the decades that followed, the US invaded countries throughout the region, overthrowing democratic governments, crushing revolutionary movements, and backing brutal dictatorships.
In Cuba, this took the form of three lengthy military occupations spanning half of the island’s first 24 years of “independence,” from 1898-1902, 1906-1909, and 1917-1922. In each case, the objective was to uphold the neocolonial order established during the first occupation and rooted in US economic interests. Under this restrictive framework, the Cuban government was denied control over its foreign relations and domestic economic policy, compelled to cede territory to the US military, and forced to accept Washington’s unilateral right of intervention.
By the 1920s, this relationship had produced a profound dependence on exports, mainly sugar, to the United States while fostering a deeply corrupt system incapable of responding to the needs and aspirations of the Cuban people. The island’s land remained concentrated in the hands of American corporations and a domestic collaborationist aristocracy, while the state invested more heavily in repression than social development, constructing more barracks than schools. With the onset of the Great Depression and the collapse of the sugar economy upon which the country had been made dependent, popular discontent only intensified.
By 1933, the government of Gerardo Machado, which promised to transform Cuba into an island of stability for American investment while violently suppressing nationalist and anti-imperialist currents in Cuban society, had become untenable. Amid mounting unrest, Machado was deposed, and a revolutionary coalition under Ramón Grau San Martín emerged, seeking to challenge Cuba’s semi-colonial status. But the United States refused to recognize it. The resulting instability created conditions for the rise of one of the more conservative figures within the anti-Machado coalition, army officer Fulgencio Batista, who in 1934 deposed the short-lived government and consolidated de facto power in his own hands with the backing of Washington.
The Roots of the Cuban Revolution
Batista would directly or indirectly pull the political strings in Cuba for much of the next quarter century. Though his earlier rule adopted a more populist posture, culminating in his election to the presidency from 1940 to 1944, life improved little for Cubans. Corruption and dependence on foreign capital remained entrenched. And by 1952, Batista had seized power outright in a military coup, inaugurating an authoritarian regime backed by increased state violence.
It was Batista’s rise, coupled with decades of economic disparities, political repression, and social neglect, that created conditions that were ripe for revolution. Among those preparing to contest the suspended elections that year was a young lawyer named Fidel Castro. Batista’s closure of even the limited avenues for democratic change lent weight to John F. Kennedy’s later observation that “those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
For more than six decades then, Cuba has represented the “threat” of example: the possibility of building a more just and humane society in which the state serves the people and not the other way around.
Castro’s first revolutionary assault came soon after, with the attack on the Moncada Barracks on July 26, 1953. Though the attack failed, Castro’s arrest and trial gave him the opportunity to defend not his innocence, but the legitimacy of and need for revolution, delivering a two-hour speech that condemned the island’s entrenched inequalities and the regime that sustained them.
The state imprisoned Castro and his fellow revolutionaries before commuting their sentences under popular pressure in 1955, after which they went into exile. From Mexico, joined by Che Guevara, they began plotting their return to Cuba and the overthrow of the regime. By late 1956, they had landed in Cuba and launched their insurgency from the Sierra Maestra mountains. Just two years later, Batista fled the country on New Year’s Day 1959, carrying with him as much as $300 million in siphoned state funds and ill-gotten gains amassed at the expense of the Cuban people, while leaving behind the ruins of a regime stained with the blood of as many as 20,000 Cubans.
Counterrevolution in the Caribbean
In 1959, the new leadership inherited a desiccated country picked over by the buzzards of foreign capital and a corrupted local elite. The Cuban revolutionaries set out to overcome these conditions and construct a more just social order, one capable of guaranteeing a basic standard of living long denied to the Cuban population through the misappropriation of the island’s wealth and resources.
The earliest measures included agrarian reform, universal education, a national literacy campaign, expanded healthcare, urban reforms that opened pathways to homeownership for working-class Cubans, and anti-discrimination laws aimed at dismantling entrenched racial hierarchies. Crucially for the trajectory of US-Cuban relations, the revolution also nationalized parasitic foreign-owned and privatized industries.
The new Cuban government was initially met with a degree of popular appeal and favorable media coverage in the United States, further amplified by Fidel Castro’s April 1959 visit to the country, during which he sought to explain the revolution to American audiences. While in Washington, Castro even met with Vice President Richard Nixon, but the Eisenhower administration quickly soured on the revolutionary government and soon resolved to see it fail.
The concern was not Cuba itself, but what the revolution might represent. As State Department official J.C. Hill warned that year, “there are indications that if the Cuban Revolution is successful other countries in Latin America and perhaps elsewhere will use it as a model and we should decide whether or not we wish to have the Cuban Revolution succeed.”
By October 1960, that decision had effectively been made with the imposition of a blockade on the island. The logic underpinning this economic declaration of war was made explicit in a memo by State Department official Lester Mallory. Recognizing that Castro retained widespread popular support, Mallory concluded that the most effective means of undermining him was the deliberate immiseration of the Cuban people. The memo called for the denial of “money and supplies” to the island in order to produce “hunger, desperation, and overthrow of government.”
In April 1961, Washington escalated its campaign by backing a direct military assault on the island. Yet the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion did little to temper the obsession with unseating Castro. In the aftermath, consensus hardened across the Kennedy administration that “US policy toward Cuba should aim at the downfall of Castro.” What followed was an expansive campaign of covert warfare involving sabotage, assassination plots, and support for anti-communist exiles.
Among the proposals considered were plans to manufacture consent for military escalation through false provocations. One suggestion was to “develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area… pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States… [which] would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.” Other proposals called for false flag attacks on the US navy and the shooting down of a civilian airliner that would then be blamed on the Cuban government.
This single-minded fixation did little to advance US objectives. Instead, it pushed Cuba further toward the Soviet Union, which offered the island an economic and political lifeline in the face of Washington’s blockade and escalating campaign of destabilization. It was within this context that Castro declared the Marxist-Leninist character of the Cuban Revolution in 1961. The relentless threats to the island also fostered a profound and understandable sense of siege within the Cuban government itself.
Ultimately, Washington’s Cuba policy, combined with what Kennedy privately described as the “goddamned dangerous” deployment of US missiles in Turkey, helped create the conditions for the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, bringing the world to the brink of a nuclear holocaust and revealing the extent to which the US was willing to risk a senseless, largely self-imposed global catastrophe in defense of the maintenance of its empire.
The Persistent “Threat” of Example
Despite this long war against Cuba, the Cuban government and people have not abandoned their revolutionary project. They have continued to build socialism and a new social order toward what Che Guevara described as the construction of “new [people]”: human beings whose motivations, commitments, and social relations are not governed by opportunistic self-interest at the expense of others, but by solidarity and a shared sense of collective humanity.
Cuba has consistently sought to demonstrate this commitment on the world stage. One of Fidel Castro’s earliest acts of foreign policy was the support of those seeking to liberate the Dominican Republic from the brutal US-backed dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo. In the decades that followed, Cuban soldiers and advisers would play major roles in liberation struggles across Africa, including in Algeria, the Congo, Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau.
For those living in the belly of the beast, we bear a clear moral and political responsibility to stand alongside the Cuban people, those on the island, to oppose the violence being carried out in our name.
Cuba’s foreign interventions proved especially consequential in the struggle against South African apartheid and white minority rule in Southern Africa. It was this material solidarity that led Nelson Mandela to declare during his 1991 visit to Havana that “the Cuban people hold a special place in the hearts of the peoples of Africa,” traveling to Cuba shortly after his release from prison.
But Cuba’s principal export to the Third World has not been bombs to take lives, as in the case of the United States. It has sent doctors to provide life. Since 1960, Cuba has dispatched more than 600,000 medical professionals to over 160 countries. In doing so, Cuba has advanced not only the principle and practice that healthcare is a human right, but a vision of education and foreign policy rooted in both science and conscience.
For more than six decades then, Cuba has represented the “threat” of example: the possibility of building a more just and humane society in which the state serves the people and not the other way around. It is time to end the madness of US policy toward Cuba and recognize that Cuba is not a failed state, but a state subjected to a criminal siege. It is not a sponsor of terrorism, but the victim of sustained US aggression.
For those living in the belly of the beast, we bear a clear moral and political responsibility to stand alongside the Cuban people, those on the island, to oppose the violence being carried out in our name. Cuba, like all those confronting US empire, deserves not the “freedom” of the grave that Washington has so often offered the world, but a true freedom rooted in justice, self-determination, and respect for human life and dignity.
We must therefore demand an end to the blockade on Cuba. We must reject any further military escalation. We must call for Cuba’s removal from the state sponsors of terrorism list. And we must support the restoration of Cuban sovereignty over the occupied territory at Guantánamo Bay.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Join the Growing Movement to End Deadly Sanctions
The cruelty of the blockade on Cuba reveals the heavy humanitarian toll of Unilateral Coercive Measures.
Apr 28, 2026
This spring people have been raising awareness of the harms caused by Unilateral Coercive Measures, UCMs or “sanctions”. Sanctions have become the “go-to” foreign policy tool of the United States government, now impacting a quarter of the global economy and one-third of the world’s population. These measures cause an average of 564,000 deaths around the world annually—comparable to the toll from armed conflict—mostly among children under 5 years old.
On April 22 Congress held a briefing on “Humanitarian Impacts of Economic Sanctions, Cuba as a Case Study,” with three outside experts: Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic Policy, co-author of the largest study ever conducted on the impacts of sanctions on mortality; David Paul, co-founder of the SanctionsKill campaign, retired nurse practitioner, and co-author of a letter from health workers to Congress about child deaths from sanctions; and Danny Valdes, co-founder of Cuban Americans for Cuba, who shared the perspective of bi-national families impacted by the longstanding and escalating US blockade of Cuba.
Economist Weisbrot said that 71% of the world’s broad economic sanctions are imposed by the United States. These unilateral measures violate international law by deliberately targeting civilian populations for collective punishment in the hope of bringing about regime change, and may even constitute war crimes. In addition to his global study, Weisbrot has compiled research that found US sanctions on Venezuela’s oil industry caused the worst depression in world history outside of wartime, leading to 40,000 excess deaths in just one year, from 2017-2018. And current data on Cuba shows a strained health system and deteriorating health indicators, such as a doubling of infant mortality over the past eight years due to the tightening of the US blockade.
David Paul painted a devastating picture of life in Cuba under escalated coercive measures, especially the fuel blockade which is causing massive power outages and disrupts transportation, the production and distribution of food, refrigeration, water and sanitation, and the operation of ambulances and lifesaving medical equipment. He said this is not an embargo, but an actual blockade of the island. “People in the US government make the false claim that ‘Cuba can buy all the medicines wherever they want.’ It’s a total lie, when in reality all their banking transactions are blocked. [The US] will threaten and punish any corporation—domestic or international—or government, that trades with you. But you are free to buy!”
One parent asked, “Why is the president of the United States deciding whether my son lives or dies?”
More pregnant women are starting prenatal care late and suffering from malnutrition, which results in premature births and low birth weights. More babies are at risk of dying from congenital malformations because of the shortage of functioning diagnostic equipment like ultrasounds needed to detect them. Half of all essential medicines are no longer available in the country, as Cuba cannot even import the raw materials needed to keep its pharmaceutical industry afloat. Children are dying from treatable cancers due to lack of medicines, and physicians are hand-pumping ventilators for their patients when the lights go out. Heartbroken Cuban doctors tell parents, “We know what medicine your daughter needs to treat her cancer, we know where it is, but we can’t get it because they won’t sell it to us.” One parent asked, “Why is the president of the United States deciding whether my son lives or dies?”
Valdes reported an exponential deterioration of conditions on the island between his visits in October 2025 and March 2026, due to the lack of fuel, such as health problems caused by uncollected garbage in the streets of Havana. He says that some blame Cuba exclusively for these troubles, but one cannot deny the role played by US policy. Cuban Americans are impacted because they cannot easily visit relatives or efficiently send them remittances, which can make the difference “between eating and not eating; between accessing medicines and going without.” He noted that the Florida International University poll, running since 1991, reports that 52% of Cuban Americans support the embargo, yet 70% also support the sale of medicine to Cuba. This shows they are not actually in favor of maximum pressure policies.
The host of the briefing, Congresswoman Delia Ramírez (D-Ill.), is a strong proponent of respectful and constructive US foreign policy. She is a leading co-sponsor of H.Res. 1056, which calls for a reset of US relations with Latin America and the Caribbean, including the end of all unilateral economic sanctions. The congresswoman indicated that from Presidents James Monroe to Donald Trump, US interventionism has left a legacy of destruction and distrust, which never leads to peace and democracy.
Congress is gaining awareness of these injustices. A growing number of lawmakers are working to curtail the threat of military force against Cuba, and several signed a statement condemning the ongoing blockade and have endorsed legislation to end it. Some even use the proper terminology, calling for an end to “coercive economic measures.” Are they finally listening to the demands of the American people to end the longest blockade in history? Ever more people are moved to act. During its Congressional Advocacy Day on April 15, Doctors Against Genocide insisted that Cuba be allowed to import medical supplies and pushed legislation to lift the blockade.
We must take advantage of this moment to grow the movement to expose the human cost of sanctions and work to end them. Popular education materials are available on the SanctionsKill website, such as the Sanctions Toolkit. A recent webinar titled “Sanctions Undermine Children’s Right to Health” uses Cuba and Venezuela as case studies to illustrate these impacts and propose a new approach to human rights, such as the Peoples-Centered Human Rights framework.
As stated in the Letter calling on Congress to end child-killing sanctions, “Imposing collective punishment on the innocent is morally reprehensible. It must stop.” Join the fight to end Unilateral Coercive Measures by contacting AmericasWithoutSanctions@gmail.com, a project of the SanctionsKill campaign.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular