Thread by @JeremyKonyndyk

I'm getting a lot of questions about this (false) claim, so let's do a wonky deep dive on how willfully wrong @Israel is on this.

Right off the top: this is the EXACT SAME THRESHOLD that was used in the Sudan famine declaration last year.

Not any lowering of the bar for Gaza.

The MUAC threshold is used in cases like Sudan or Gaza where access is limited and full weight-for-height studies are not feasible.

Here is the relevant portion of the Dec 2024 famine analysis for Sudan, using the same MUAC >15% threshold. ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user…

IPC guidance very explicitly allows for these two approaches to assessing Global Acute Malnutrition in a population:

- weight-for-height analysis
and
- mid-upper-arm circumference (MUAC) screening

MUAC is used when access constraints prevent a full weight-for-height survey.

Because they measure different physical characteristics, weight-for-height and MUAC often manifest at different levels within the same population.

A lower MUAC usually equates to a higher weight-for-height GAM. Hence the different thresholds of 15% and 30%.

In famine scenarios, MUAC screening can actually be more useful at ID'ing at-risk individuals.

It reflects depletion of fat and muscle, rather than overall BMI (which can skew in individuals based on other factors). MUAC thus more effectively pinpoints kids at risk of mortality.

The MUAC threshold is used routinely in famine analysis when a representative weight-for-height survey is not possible.

In addition to Sudan/2024, this method was used in the South Sudan/2020 declaration as well. ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user…

So contra Israel's claims, the methodology in the Gaza famine declaration is fully:

- in line with established IPC guidance
- consistent with the threshold in other prior famine declarations

This is not a good-faith misread. It is a campaign of concerted disinfo.

Shameful.

Hold up - there's more.

Someone in the replies tried to rebut my take by pointing me to this official Israeli rebuttal to the IPC.

But it actually makes even clearer how disingenuous the Israeli govt counter-arguments are. govextra.gov.il/mda/ipc/gaza/

Credit to them - it's pretty clever sophistry and you have to really dig into the data to spot it.

It's clever enough that it doesn’t look like an accidental misreading, but rather an intentional obscuring of the FRC’s analysis.

The govt’s argument here is that FRC erred by only using half of July’s GAM data to make its determination, and that the full July data actually show MUAC GAM under the 15% threshold.

That’s half true. That is what the whole-of-July average shows.

BUT…

...the FRC analysis accounts for that! And it actually just strengthens the FRC conclusion.

They split July into the first and second halves to better spot the *trend* in GAM data.

The first half of the July is under 15%; the latter half is above, and trending even higher.

So given that trajectory, the FRC was right to conclude that by the time of their analysis, the GAM level in Gaza Governorate had breached the famine threshold and was continuing to rise.

And the Israeli govt intentionally left out that critical context in their rebuttal.

Anyway, bear this example in mind when weighing other counter-evidence put forward by the GoI.

They are not analyzing data, they are manipulating stats to fit their narrative - exactly what they allege the IPC is doing. Every accusation is a confession....