This post is also available in:
English 
Русский (Russian)
Short answer
Famine isn’t a mood — it’s math!
By the UN’s own standard, famine requires three elements at once: 20% of households without food, 30% of children acutely malnourished, and two deaths per 10,000 people per day from starvation. Gaza doesn’t come close: mortality is low, and even in Gaza City, child malnutrition peaks at 16.5%, under 8% elsewhere. Yet a 59-page report by the IPC, a UN-backed consortium, lowered the malnutrition bar to 15% and relied heavily on phone surveys, admitting “limited evidence” for North Gaza while assuming the situation was “similar or worse.”
The study also leans on Israeli food-delivery data it simultaneously questions, dismisses other aid such as GHF shipments as “non-humanitarian,” and warns that without a ceasefire “avoidable deaths will increase exponentially” — rhetoric that sounds more like an activist statement than a scientific review. This is “cafeteria science,” cherry-picking numbers to fit a political narrative.
Bottom line: the Gaza famine claim rests on downgraded thresholds, unreliable surveys, and politicized language — not on the UN’s own evidence-based criteria.
Long answer
Famine has a clear numerical definition, and unfortunately, bad actors who seek to vilify Israel try to distort those numbers to fit their narrative…
Let’s unpack this: by the UN’s own definition, famine means 20% of households without food, 30% of children acutely malnourished, and two people out of every 10,000 dying each day from starvation. Gaza doesn’t meet those thresholds: mortality is far below famine levels, and even in Gaza City child malnutrition is 16.5%; elsewhere it’s under 8% — well short of the 30% benchmark.
Yet a 59-page report from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), a UN-backed consortium, announced a “worst-case famine,” coincidentally just as Israel prepared to enter Gaza City, Hamas’s last major stronghold.
How? By quietly changing its own rules. The report added a metric never before used for famine declarations — mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC), a quick but less precise test usually meant for screening, not final classification. It also lowered the malnutrition bar from 30% to 15% (half!), a level previously used only to indicate that famine might become likely. That tweak was buried in a footnote under “When is Famine Classified?” and suddenly 16.5% “qualified.” Veteran aid workers expressed surprise: every prior famine call relied on the 30% weight-for-height standard, not a 15% MUAC shortcut. Odd, isn’t it?
The methodology is shaky too. Much of the data came from phone surveys, plus “internal documents” from the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry and organizations accused of ties to the terror faction. For areas like North Gaza, the report concedes “limited evidence” but assumes conditions are “similar or worse” — speculation, not analysis.
The IPC questions Israel’s food-delivery data yet uses it as a core input, dismisses GHF shipments as “non-humanitarian,” and warns that without a ceasefire “avoidable deaths will increase exponentially.” That language reads more like lobbying than science.
To top it off, one of the report’s authors, Andrew Seal, has a record of hostility toward Israel, even justifying Houthi attacks on Israeli civilians. Hardly neutral grounds for rewriting famine standards. Not very objective, is it?
Meanwhile, real famine zones such as Sudan’s Zamzam camp or parts of Yemen easily exceed the original thresholds: over 30% malnourishment, death rates above two per 10,000 per day, entire households without food. Those crises receive only a fraction of Gaza’s coverage.
Bottom line: Gaza does not meet the UN’s famine standard. What we see is downgraded metrics, unverified sources, and politicized framing — a narrative built to serve an agenda, not to reflect reality.
