Mick Hartley

Mark Zlochin at the JC challenges the UN Gaza famine report:

The UN-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) has declared a “famine” in Gaza. The announcement led global headlines, was cited at the UN Security Council, and spread rapidly across media and social networks. Yet on inspection, the evidence underpinning the claim falls apart.

As Zloclin shows, they "bent thresholds, ignored half the evidence and relied on assumptions, turning a situation of undeniable hardship into a claim of catastrophic collapse that the data simply does not support". 

For instance:

The same pattern played out with mortality, the second key pillar of a famine declaration. The IPC analysis quietly admitted that reported deaths were below the famine threshold, but then suggested that many deaths might not have been counted. What they did not spell out is just how enormous the gap really was.

For Gaza City, the famine line would have meant close to 200 deaths every single day from hunger or related disease. The actual reported figure was about six deaths per day across the entire Strip – nowhere near the threshold. Even if every one of those deaths had been in Gaza City and directly caused by malnutrition, the rate would still have been more than 30 times lower than the famine threshold.

Of course, in any war zone some deaths may go unreported. But to claim that actual mortality was 30 times higher than the numbers on record is an extraordinary leap. And as the late Carl Sagan famously said: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” The IPC did not provide such evidence. Instead, it relied on speculation and on a few highly controversial studies that were far from sufficient to support claims of hundreds of unreported starvation-related deaths per day. Yet it was precisely this assumption that underpinned the famine declaration.

In addition, the report downplayed or ignored positive signs of recovery, such as increased aid deliveries, falling food prices, and expanded humanitarian access. Observers have also noted that at least one of its authors has a record of anti‑Israel bias.

Taken together, these issues raise serious questions not only about the technical rigour of the analysis, but also about its objectivity and neutrality. In short, the evidence presented by the IPC did not even come close to justifying the use of a famine designation. 

Also, as I noted earlier, the media's persistent use of children with pre-existing medical issues as evidence does little to boost confidence in the famine narrative.