The recent declaration by the UN-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) that famine exists in Gaza has sparked intense international debate and legal ramifications. However, a growing body of analysis suggests that this determination may be fundamentally flawed, riddled with methodological problems, and influenced by anti-Israel bias among its authors. This examination reveals concerning patterns in how the UN and affiliated bodies have reported on Gaza’s humanitarian situation, raising serious questions about the reliability of their conclusions.

The IPC’s Controversial Famine Declaration

On August 22, the IPC’s Famine Review Committee officially declared that famine was unfolding in the Gaza Governorate, encompassing Gaza City and its surrounding areas. The report warned that this famine could potentially spread to Khan Younis and Deir al-Balah in the coming weeks. International media outlets immediately amplified these findings, with major publications treating the declaration as established fact from a credible, neutral international body.

The IPC’s conclusions were stark and unequivocal. The report classified the Gaza Governorate as experiencing Phase 5 famine conditions, claiming that over half a million people in parts of the Gaza Strip face “catastrophic conditions characterized by starvation, destitution and death.” The assessment projected that 132,000 children under five would suffer from acute malnutrition through June 2026, including 41,000 severe cases described as being “at heightened risk of death.” These findings formed the basis for renewed international condemnation of Israel and fresh calls for immediate intervention to prevent what the IPC characterized as a man-made humanitarian catastrophe of unprecedented scale.

However, this latest report represents just one chapter in a troubled history of questionable UN reporting on Gaza’s humanitarian situation. The pattern of problematic assessments began early in the conflict and has continued despite repeated corrections and contradictory evidence.

A History of Inaccurate Predictions

The IPC’s track record on Gaza famine predictions has been notably poor. In March 2024, the organization predicted that famine would occur in northern Gaza between March and May 2024, subsequently spreading to the rest of the Strip by July. The report classified 50% of Gaza’s population (1.11 million people) as facing “catastrophic conditions” or Phase 5 food insecurity.

These dire predictions proved incorrect. By June 2024, the IPC’s own Famine Review Committee acknowledged that “the evidence on acute malnutrition and mortality does not indicate that famine thresholds have been passed” for both northern and southern Gaza. The committee found that “the available evidence does not indicate that famine is currently occurring,” forcing the IPC to revise its assessment dramatically downward.

The June revision reduced the classification of people in “catastrophic situations” from 1.11 million (50% of the population) to 495,000 (22% of the population) – a reduction of more than half. Despite this significant correction, the UN continued to use inflammatory language, with some officials declaring that “famine has spread throughout the Gaza strip” even after their own reports contradicted this claim.

Methodological Flaws in the August 2025 Report

Critics have identified numerous methodological problems with the latest IPC famine declaration that appear to violate the organization’s own established standards:

Inappropriate Use of MUAC Measurements

The IPC relied on Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) measurements rather than the more reliable weight-for-height scores to determine acute malnutrition among children. While MUAC can be used in emergency situations, it is specifically “limited to classifying Phase 4 (Emergency), not Phase 5 (Famine).” The use of MUAC measurements to justify a Phase 5 classification directly contradicts established IPC protocols.

Additionally, pre-war Gaza had significantly higher MUAC prevalence rates compared to weight-for-height rates – an anomaly that should have led to adjusted thresholds. The IPC failed to account for this baseline difference, potentially inflating malnutrition assessments.

The IPC’s claim of a 16% malnutrition rate among children under five was based on only a partial sample of July’s data. When complete data for July became available on August 6, showing a malnutrition rate of 12.2%, the IPC chose not to incorporate this updated information into its findings – a decision that raises serious questions about selective data usage.

Furthermore, the report relied heavily on hospital records rather than community-based surveys, which skews results toward sicker children and excludes healthy populations. This approach directly contradicts IPC guidelines that typically prohibit using hospital-based data for population-wide assessments.

Perhaps most problematically, the IPC made extraordinary assumptions about unreported deaths to meet famine thresholds. While official sources reported an average of six malnutrition-related deaths per day, the IPC assumed that the actual number was significantly higher – despite lacking evidence for this claim. To meet the famine threshold of two deaths per 10,000 people daily, approximately 130 malnutrition-related deaths would need to occur daily in the Gaza Governorate. The assumption that over 20 times more deaths are occurring than reported lacks credible justification.

The foundation of the IPC’s assessments rests on data provided by UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which has been collecting information through UNRWA since October 7, 2023. However, analysis reveals systematic problems with this data collection process.

UNRWA’s data collection method captures only aid observed at specific southern crossings (Kerem Shalom and Rafah) while representatives are present. This approach systematically excludes:

• Aid delivered through air drops
• Supplies arriving via the US floating pier
• Aid received through the northern Erez crossing
• Deliveries when UNRWA representatives are absent
• Private sector goods and fuel shipments
• Flour deliveries to northern Gaza bakeries

The result is a dramatic undercount of aid entering Gaza. For example, in May 2024, OCHA initially reported approximately 2,790 trucks entering Gaza, while Israel’s Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) documented 6,359 trucks – a discrepancy of nearly 4,000 trucks. Over the entire period from the war’s beginning through June 2024, OCHA counted 28,818 trucks while COGAT recorded 38,212 trucks, representing a gap of almost 10,000 trucks.

Lack of Transparency and Verification

The UN consistently presented incomplete data without acknowledging its limitations. It wasn’t until late April 2024 that OCHA first added a disclaimer noting that figures only included “supplies observed or registered by the UN” at specific crossings. This critical limitation should have been disclosed from the beginning, especially given the serious accusations being leveled against Israel based on this data.

The UN also failed to verify figures from Gaza-based sources, many of which are controlled by or closely aligned with Hamas. Meanwhile, Israeli data was consistently dismissed without explanation, despite Israel being a democratic state with independent media, civil society oversight, and judicial review.

Anti-Israel Bias Among Report Authors

Beyond methodological concerns, the credibility of the IPC report is further undermined by the inclusion of authors with documented anti-Israel bias and activism.

Andrew Seal, an associate professor at University College London, has demonstrated clear anti-Israel bias through his social media activity and public statements. He accused Israel of genocide as early as October 28, 2023, just weeks after the Hamas attack and before Israel’s ground operation had fully commenced. His social media presence includes:

• Defending Houthi attacks against international shipping
• Accusing Israel of apartheid
• Drawing moral equivalencies between Israel and Hamas
• Spreading Iranian regime propaganda
• Dismissing the threat posed by Hamas despite their explicit calls for repeated October 7-style massacres

Zeina Jamaluddine, an assistant professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, co-authored a controversial study on Gaza death tolls published in The Lancet that was criticized for faulty methodology and political bias. Notably, she and her team were granted exclusive access to data by the Hamas-run Ministry of Health, raising questions about potential manipulation of information.

Jamaluddine has also:

• Described Israeli defensive actions against Hezbollah as “terror”
• Called for an end to the war as early as October 16, 2023 – just nine days after the Hamas massacre
• Advocated for “decolonization” in the context of Israel and Gaza

Another key figure, Alex de Waal, heads an organization that has been described as “a leader of the ‘starvation as a weapon’ narrative against Israel” since the beginning of the war. Prior to the IPC report’s publication, de Waal used Qatar-funded media platforms to accuse Israel of “precisely engineered starvation” and “genocidal starvation” – predetermined conclusions that he later incorporated into supposedly objective scientific analysis.

The Real Humanitarian Picture

While no one disputes that Gaza’s population faces genuine hardships due to ongoing conflict, the evidence suggests a more complex reality than portrayed in UN reports.

According to COGAT data, humanitarian aid entering Gaza has actually exceeded minimum requirements. The organization tracks all aid entering through all crossings and routes, including supplies from international organizations, private sector goods, and deliveries via air, sea, and land. Monthly totals show significant increases in aid flows, with the number of trucks nearly doubling between February and April 2024.

At times, aid has accumulated faster than it could be distributed, with COGAT reporting 1,500 trucks waiting for collection from Kerem Shalom and the floating pier in June 2024. This backlog contradicts claims of deliberate aid restriction.

Reports from Gaza itself suggest food availability that contradicts famine conditions. Images of functioning markets, decreasing food prices, and testimonies about food accessibility paint a different picture than the one presented in UN assessments. The World Health Organization, as of June 2024, reported only 32 deaths from acute malnutrition and starvation – far below the thousands that would be expected under true famine conditions as predicted by the IPC.

Hamas’s Role in Aid Obstruction

UN reports consistently downplay or ignore Hamas’s role in obstructing aid distribution. The organization has:

• Attacked border crossings with rocket fire, forcing temporary closures
• Controlled convoy routes and distribution points
• Looted aid trucks and storage facilities
• Used civilian infrastructure for military purposes
• Attacked humanitarian installations, including the US floating pier

The UN’s own acknowledgment that close to 90% of its aid is looted by “armed actors” or others further undermines claims that Israel is systematically preventing aid delivery.

International Legal Implications

The flawed UN and IPC reports have had far-reaching consequences beyond public opinion. International legal proceedings have heavily relied on these assessments:

In three separate instances where the ICJ issued provisional measures against Israel in the genocide case filed by South Africa, the majority of judges based their decisions on UN reports and IPC famine predictions. The court quoted statements by UN officials that characterized Gaza’s situation as “catastrophic” based on these problematic assessments.

ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan referenced IPC findings when requesting arrest warrants against Israeli officials, specifically citing claims about 1.1 million people facing “catastrophic hunger.” These legal proceedings are thus built upon a foundation of questionable data and biased analysis.

UN Opposition to Alternative Aid Mechanisms

The UN’s objections to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) provide perhaps the most revealing evidence of institutional bias prioritizing political control over genuine humanitarian relief. The humanitarian community, led by UNRWA, has called for an end to the GHF, describing it as providing “nothing but starvation and gunfire to the people of Gaza”. UN experts have demanded the “immediate dismantling” of the GHF, calling it “an utterly disturbing example of how humanitarian relief can be exploited for covert military and geopolitical agendas”.

This opposition is particularly striking given the UN’s simultaneous claims of dire humanitarian conditions in Gaza. If the situation were truly as catastrophic as portrayed in IPC reports, one would expect international organizations to welcome any additional aid delivery mechanism, regardless of its sponsor. Instead, UNRWA has demanded “urgent clarification” from UN leadership over any meetings with the GHF, warning that failing to criticize the initiative risks being seen as complicity in war crimes.

The institutional resistance to alternative aid delivery suggests that maintaining control over humanitarian operations – and by extension, allowing Hamas to continue hijacking aid – may be more important to these organizations than actually alleviating suffering. This pattern reinforces concerns that UNRWA and other UN agencies may be inadvertently or deliberately helping Hamas maintain its grip on power by preserving aid distribution systems that the terrorist organization can manipulate and exploit.

Misleading Imagery and Propaganda Campaigns

The humanitarian narrative has been further undermined by revelations about staged and manipulated imagery designed to amplify claims of famine and starvation. German newspaper Bild revealed photos of Gazans holding empty pots posing in front of photographers, rather than actually waiting in line for food aid. These photographers often have documented ties to Hamas, and some were actively embedded with terrorists during the October 7 massacre.

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has documented “a concerning surge of misleading information, manipulative narratives and fabricated or AI-generated images” targeting Israel and misrepresenting Gaza’s humanitarian situation. Examples include Hamas propaganda exploiting images of seriously ill children, with some Western media outlets publishing them, including a widely shared image of a child that was actually a recycled photo of a Yazidi girl from 2014.

Israeli military officials have stated that “no real hunger crisis exists in Gaza” and accused Hamas of using “fake images of malnourished children from Yemen” to manufacture evidence of famine conditions. Israeli military spokesperson Brigadier General Effie Defrin told reporters that “the claims of starvation are fake, and it’s an organized campaign by Hamas in order to fight us”.

These revelations about staged photography and recycled imagery call into question the visual evidence that has been central to international perceptions of Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. The systematic nature of these deceptions suggests a coordinated propaganda effort designed to shape international opinion and legal proceedings against Israel.

The Broader Pattern of UN Bias

The problems with Gaza reporting reflect a broader pattern of UN bias against Israel. This bias manifests in several ways:

UN reports consistently emphasize negative aspects of Israeli actions while ignoring or minimizing:

• Israel’s opening of additional aid corridors
• Humanitarian pauses in fighting to facilitate aid delivery
• Infrastructure improvements to aid routes
• Coordination with international relief efforts
• Steps taken to prioritize humanitarian trucks over commercial vehicles

The UN dismisses Israeli government data without explanation while accepting information from Hamas-controlled sources at face value. This represents a troubling preference for information from a designated terrorist organization over a democratic government with transparent institutions and independent oversight.

UN officials have used inflammatory language to describe Israel’s actions, often timing statements to coincide with international legal proceedings or diplomatic pressure campaigns. The consistency of this pattern suggests coordinated messaging rather than objective assessment.

Recommendations for Media and Policymakers

Given these documented problems, several recommendations emerge:

For Media Organizations

• Critically examine UN and IPC reports rather than treating them as unquestionable authority
• Investigate the backgrounds and potential biases of report authors
• Compare multiple data sources and highlight discrepancies
• Provide context about the complexity of humanitarian operations in active war zones
• Acknowledge when organizations have been forced to revise previous assessments

For Policymakers

• Demand transparency in data collection methodologies
• Require verification of information from conflict zones
• Consider multiple sources when making policy decisions
• Investigate potential bias in international monitoring organizations
• Ensure that legal proceedings are based on verified, complete information

For International Organizations

• Implement stricter standards for author selection to ensure objectivity
• Require full disclosure of data limitations and sources
• Establish independent verification mechanisms
• Address documented cases of bias and methodological failures
• Separate humanitarian assessment from political advocacy

The Israeli goverenment responded to the reporting with heavy criticism:

“Unbelievably, the IPC twisted its own rules and ignored its own criteria just to produce false accusations against Israel: the IPC changed its own global standard, cutting the 30% threshold to 15% for this report only, and totally ignoring its second criterion of death rate, solely to serve Hamas’s fake campaign,” the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated.

“The entire IPC document is based on Hamas lies laundered through organizations with vested interests.”

There is no famine in Gaza. Over 100,000 trucks of aid have entered Gaza since the start of the war, and in recent weeks a massive influx of aid has flooded the Strip with staple foods and caused a sharp decline in food prices, which have plummeted in the markets. 

The laws of supply and demand don’t lie – the IPC does. Every forecast the IPC has made regarding Gaza during the war has proven baseless and completely false. 

This assessment too will be thrown into the despicable trash bin of political documents.

Conclusion

The evidence presented by multiple Israeli institutions, independent analysts, and even the IPC’s own subsequent revisions suggests that the famine declaration in Gaza is built on a foundation of flawed methodology, incomplete data, and biased analysis. The inclusion of demonstrably anti-Israel activists as report authors further undermines the credibility of these assessments.