Israel has issued a sharp and detailed rebuttal to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification's (IPC) formal response regarding the controversial famine declaration in Gaza. The IPC had released its response on August 30, following wide-ranging criticism of its August 22 declaration, which marked the first time famine was officially classified in the Gaza Strip. Israel's latest statement accuses the IPC of sidestepping key concerns and perpetuating inaccuracies.
According to the Israeli analysis, the IPC's use of a 15% threshold for Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) to define famine was based on misleading generalizations. The IPC cited precedents from South Sudan and Sudan, yet failed to account for regional variability. The Israeli statement noted that in the Middle East, a more accurate MUAC threshold would be approximately 23%, referencing the IPC's own dataset. Applying the 15% threshold in Gaza, it argued, inflated famine signals sixfold.
The statement also challenged the IPC's introduction of a new dataset after the initial report's publication. This data, according to Israel, was used to retroactively justify claims of worsening malnutrition. The dataset was neither included in the original report nor subjected to peer review. Israel further accused the IPC of inflating malnutrition rates by using unadjusted averages from samples disproportionately weighted toward younger children, which systematically skewed results upward. In one notable instance, a sub-sample of only 12 children with a 91.7% malnutrition rate was treated as representative evidence.
Israel additionally criticized the IPC for altering the reported dates of data collection in a way that exaggerated the contrast between early and late July malnutrition rates. This, Israel argued, falsely reinforced a narrative of exponential deterioration.
The IPC, for its part, defended its methodology by citing its 2019 and 2021 technical manuals, which recognize both MUAC and WHZ (Weight-for-Height Z-score) as valid famine indicators. It noted that in conflict zones like Gaza, where WHZ data is difficult to obtain, MUAC is often the only feasible option and has been used in prior famine classifications in similar contexts. The IPC also emphasized that its classification relies on a convergence of multiple indicators, not MUAC alone.
The IPC's handling of two key phone surveys in July was also highlighted. While one survey reported a 36% rate of "very severe hunger" in Gaza City, another found only 12%. The IPC highlighted the former in its main report and relegated the latter to an annex. According to Israel, this selective presentation distorted the overall picture and sidelined contradictory evidence without proper justification.
Israel also rejected the IPC's defense of its past projections, which frequently anticipated worsening food insecurity that failed to materialize. The IPC claimed that its warnings helped spur humanitarian action that changed outcomes. Israel countered that these projections ignored existing policy changes and improvements, such as increased aid flows, reduced food prices, and expanded humanitarian access.
The IPC maintained that its projections are based on prevailing conditions and trends, and that improved outcomes often follow its alerts due to increased humanitarian interventions. It pointed to examples of improved access and food distributions in response to earlier IPC warnings, claiming that these temporary gains, though positive, do not negate the accuracy of its initial assessments.
In its concluding remarks, Israel accused the IPC of abusing its expert authority by misrepresenting data, evading core methodological questions, and doubling down on a flawed narrative. A forthcoming technical report, it said, will expand on these concerns and provide full supporting data.
Meanwhile, the IPC has reiterated that its Gaza classification was made under conditions of extreme constraint, relying on the best available evidence. It defended the exclusion of conflict parties from the analytical process as a necessary step to preserve neutrality and avoid politicization. However, Israel insists that this exclusion led to a one-sided narrative and the omission of relevant ground realities, undermining the legitimacy of the process.