🧵 The UN-backed IPC just declared “famine” in Gaza City.
Here’s why that claim is WRONG — and why it matters.
Here’s why that claim is WRONG — and why it matters.
1/
The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) is the gold-standard system for declaring famine.
Its word carries huge political and legal weight — cited in the UN Security Council, ICJ, and the media.
But in Gaza, the IPC broke its own rules.
The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) is the gold-standard system for declaring famine.
Its word carries huge political and legal weight — cited in the UN Security Council, ICJ, and the media.
But in Gaza, the IPC broke its own rules.
2/
A famine declaration is supposed to be exceptional — only when extreme benchmarks are indisputably met:
✅Malnutrition rates above 15%
✅Crude death rates far above normal
✅Clear evidence of food collapse
None of those were actually met in Gaza City.
A famine declaration is supposed to be exceptional — only when extreme benchmarks are indisputably met:
✅Malnutrition rates above 15%
✅Crude death rates far above normal
✅Clear evidence of food collapse
None of those were actually met in Gaza City.
3/
📊 The malnutrition numbers:
The IPC based its “famine” claim on an incomplete July dataset showing 16% acute malnutrition.
But the full July sample (double the size!) showed just 12.2% — below the famine threshold.
The IPC had this data. It ignored it.
📊 The malnutrition numbers:
The IPC based its “famine” claim on an incomplete July dataset showing 16% acute malnutrition.
But the full July sample (double the size!) showed just 12.2% — below the famine threshold.
The IPC had this data. It ignored it.
4/
📉 Mortality figures:
To meet the famine definition, Gaza City would need death rates 30x higher than what was actually observed.
The IPC instead assumed massive numbers of “unreported” deaths — speculation, not evidence.
📉 Mortality figures:
To meet the famine definition, Gaza City would need death rates 30x higher than what was actually observed.
The IPC instead assumed massive numbers of “unreported” deaths — speculation, not evidence.
5/
🍞 Food access:
By mid-August, the trend was improving, not collapsing:
✅More aid trucks were entering
✅Food distribution expanded
✅Prices in local markets dropped sharply
The IPC ignored this more recent evidence.
🍞 Food access:
By mid-August, the trend was improving, not collapsing:
✅More aid trucks were entering
✅Food distribution expanded
✅Prices in local markets dropped sharply
The IPC ignored this more recent evidence.
6/
🔍 Methodological shortcuts:
❌Relied on MUAC arm-measurements instead of gold-standard weight-for-height surveys.
❌Treated clinic screenings (biased samples of sick kids) as if they represented the general population.
❌Mislabelled Phase 4 thresholds as “famine thresholds.”
🔍 Methodological shortcuts:
❌Relied on MUAC arm-measurements instead of gold-standard weight-for-height surveys.
❌Treated clinic screenings (biased samples of sick kids) as if they represented the general population.
❌Mislabelled Phase 4 thresholds as “famine thresholds.”
7/
⚖️ Neutrality broken:
Normally, IPC analyses are multi-stakeholder and transparent.
But for Gaza, Israel was excluded from the process.
That meant no fact-checking, no scrutiny — and major errors went uncorrected.
⚖️ Neutrality broken:
Normally, IPC analyses are multi-stakeholder and transparent.
But for Gaza, Israel was excluded from the process.
That meant no fact-checking, no scrutiny — and major errors went uncorrected.
8/
📈 Bias in forecasts:
Every IPC report on Gaza since Oct 2023 predicted conditions would worsen.
In reality, they often improved.
Example: March 2024 forecast said 50% in famine. Actual number? 15%.
But the next forecast still assumed worsening.
📈 Bias in forecasts:
Every IPC report on Gaza since Oct 2023 predicted conditions would worsen.
In reality, they often improved.
Example: March 2024 forecast said 50% in famine. Actual number? 15%.
But the next forecast still assumed worsening.
9/
🕳️ Lack of transparency:
Key datasets not published
Requests for underlying data ignored
Methodological inconsistencies swept under the rug
This isn’t “science.” It’s politics disguised as science.
🕳️ Lack of transparency:
Key datasets not published
Requests for underlying data ignored
Methodological inconsistencies swept under the rug
This isn’t “science.” It’s politics disguised as science.
10/
📌 Bottom line:
The IPC famine declaration for Gaza City is not supported by its own criteria.
It relied on selective, outdated data and ignored evidence of improvement.
This isn’t just a mistake.
It’s a credibility crisis for the IPC system itself.
📌 Bottom line:
The IPC famine declaration for Gaza City is not supported by its own criteria.
It relied on selective, outdated data and ignored evidence of improvement.
This isn’t just a mistake.
It’s a credibility crisis for the IPC system itself.
11/
Words matter.
When famine is declared where famine doesn’t exist, it:
⬇️Undermines trust in humanitarian agencies
🔥Fuels political agendas
🚒Makes it harder to respond credibly when famine truly occurs
Words matter.
When famine is declared where famine doesn’t exist, it:
⬇️Undermines trust in humanitarian agencies
🔥Fuels political agendas
🚒Makes it harder to respond credibly when famine truly occurs
12/
🔚 Conclusion:
Gaza’s suffering is real.
But misusing the word “famine” helps no one.
It distorts the truth, politicises humanitarian work, and discredits the very system meant to protect the vulnerable.
The IPC must fix its standards — or lose its credibility.
🔚 Conclusion:
Gaza’s suffering is real.
But misusing the word “famine” helps no one.
It distorts the truth, politicises humanitarian work, and discredits the very system meant to protect the vulnerable.
The IPC must fix its standards — or lose its credibility.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
