Listen to the article
Israeli officials have strongly criticized a new report from the United Nations-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), calling it biased and claiming its conclusions about food insecurity in Gaza were “predetermined.”
The IPC, which previously claimed famine conditions existed in Gaza Governorate in August, now reports that approximately 1.6 million Gazans are facing “high levels of acute food insecurity.” This represents a shift from their earlier projections, which had warned that famine would spread to additional governorates by September 30.
IDF Major General Ghassan Alian of COGAT (Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories), the Israeli body responsible for coordinating humanitarian aid to Gaza, dismissed the IPC’s assertions as “biased claims” that “disregard the volumes of food that entered during the ceasefire.”
In a statement, COGAT emphasized that this isn’t the first time IPC reports about Gaza have contained “extreme forecasts and warnings that do not materialize in practice.” The agency called on the international community to “act responsibly, avoid falling for false narratives and distorted information and refrain from legitimizing a biased and unprofessional report.”
The IPC’s latest assessment acknowledged changing conditions on the ground. The organization’s Famine Review Committee noted that following their previous report, “there was a partial relaxation of the blockade and an increase in the availability of food and other essential supplies.” While the committee maintains this intervention “came too late to avoid famine in Gaza Governorate in July and early August,” they now acknowledge that “the persistence of Famine and its spread to other governorates during the projection period has been avoided.”
Several experts have disputed the IPC’s earlier famine declarations. Dr. David Adesnik, vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital that mortality figures, though concerning, never reached levels typically associated with famine conditions. He also pointed out that prices of key food items had remained relatively stable or even declined during the period when famine was allegedly occurring.
Regarding the latest report, Adesnik criticized the IPC for “dodging the question of proving that they were right” about their prior famine declarations. He specifically challenged the IPC’s assertion that “data largely capture trauma-related deaths and overlook a substantial proportion of non-traumatic mortality,” calling this “a big leap.”
According to Adesnik, the IPC’s own figures show the highest number of malnutrition-related deaths per month was 27, with malnutrition deaths peaking at 186 overall. “Hundreds of people dying from malnutrition is still a terrible, terrible thing,” Adesnik noted, “but we were asking a question: Is this famine? And that is not remotely close to the threshold for determining famine.”
The IPC told Fox News Digital that to meet the official famine threshold, “at least two in every 10,000 people” or “at least four in every 10,000 children under five are dying daily” due to “outright starvation or the interaction of malnutrition and disease.” Defending their previous assessment, the IPC stated that “in the case of the Gaza analysis, there was clear evidence that thresholds for starvation and acute malnutrition had been reached, and analysts reasonably assessed from the broader evidence that the mortality threshold has likely been reached.”
Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Oren Marmorstein countered on social media that “the IPC also disregards the fact that, on average, between 600 and 800 aid trucks enter the Gaza Strip every day, 70% of them carrying food – nearly five times more than what the IPC itself said was required for the Strip.”
Despite walking back its immediate famine declaration, the IPC still warns that in a “worst-case scenario” of resumed conflict, “the entire Gaza Strip is at risk of famine through mid-April 2026.”
Adesnik characterized this prediction as merely “guessing about the future,” while emphasizing the serious implications of IPC assessments given ongoing cases at the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice involving allegations of war crimes and genocide against Israel. A declaration of famine, he suggested, could serve as a “big building block” in building such cases.
Last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio sanctioned two more members of the ICC for their participation in efforts to “investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute Israeli nationals without Israel’s consent,” stating that the State Department “will continue to hold accountable those responsible for the ICC’s morally bankrupt and legally baseless actions against Americans and Israelis.”
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
16 Comments
Accusations of bias and predetermined conclusions are common in politically charged conflicts like this. Both sides need to approach the issue with more objectivity and a genuine desire to understand the realities on the ground.
Agreed. Relying on reliable, independent data sources and analyses is key to cutting through the rhetoric and finding effective ways to address food insecurity in Gaza.
This dispute highlights the need for greater cooperation and coordination between the various stakeholders involved in addressing the humanitarian challenges in Gaza. Politicizing the issue is counterproductive and only serves to further exacerbate the suffering of the local population.
Agreed. All parties need to put aside their differences and work together in good faith to find sustainable solutions that prioritize the well-being of the Gazan people.
The flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza is a critical factor here. If Israel is facilitating significant food and other supplies, then the UN’s assessment of famine risk may be exaggerated. But the UN also has extensive monitoring capabilities, so their concerns shouldn’t be dismissed outright.
This highlights the complexity of the situation and the need for cooperation between all stakeholders to find a balanced, fact-based solution that addresses the genuine needs of the Gazan population.
The shifting assessments from the UN’s IPC are concerning, as they raise questions about the credibility of their reporting. However, Israel’s dismissal of their findings is also problematic, as it could be seen as an attempt to downplay the situation.
Ultimately, the well-being of the Gazan people should be the top priority. Both sides need to come together, in good faith, to find sustainable solutions to the region’s complex humanitarian challenges.
Interesting to see the disagreement between Israel and the UN on the food security situation in Gaza. Without access to the full data, it’s hard to assess the validity of the claims on both sides. More transparency from all parties would help provide a clearer picture.
I agree, more transparency and objective analysis is needed to get an accurate understanding of the situation on the ground. Political narratives often cloud the reality.
This dispute highlights the importance of having robust, transparent monitoring and reporting mechanisms when it comes to critical issues like food security. Without that, it’s difficult to separate fact from fiction and ensure that the most vulnerable populations are being adequately supported.
Agreed. A collaborative, evidence-based approach is needed to address the complex challenges in Gaza and find lasting solutions that benefit the local population.
The conflicting claims around the food security situation in Gaza are concerning. While Israel’s criticism of the UN report may have some validity, dismissing the UN’s findings outright is problematic. A more nuanced, evidence-based approach is needed to properly understand and address the complex realities on the ground.
Absolutely. Transparent, collaborative efforts involving all stakeholders, including independent observers, would be the best way to arrive at a clear, unbiased assessment of the situation and develop effective solutions.
The conflicting narratives around the food security situation in Gaza are troubling. Both the UN and Israel seem to have their own agendas, which makes it hard to trust either side’s claims. Independent third-party verification would be ideal to get a clearer picture of the reality on the ground.
Absolutely. Impartial, fact-based assessments are crucial to ensure that any humanitarian aid and interventions are targeted effectively and reach those who need it most.