SICKENING BUT NOT SURPRISED: The UN ‘quietly’ changed the definition of “famine”—just for Gaza.
Not for Sudan.
Not for Somalia.
Not for South Sudan.
ONLY FOR GAZA
🔻 They cut the malnutrition threshold in half
🔻 Switched to a less reliable metric (MUAC)
🔻 Used unverifiable, Hamas-linked “data”
🔻 Buried the changes in a footnote
Any organization that rewrites its own rules to achieve a political outcome loses all legitimacy.
They should be ashamed.
We should stop funding them.
Link To The Full report Below.
The post critiques the UN’s Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) for altering its famine declaration criteria specifically for Gaza, lowering the malnutrition threshold from 30% to 15% using the less precise mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) metric, a shift not applied to famine assessments in Sudan or Somalia, as noted in the Washington Free Beacon’s August 12, 2025 report.
Evidence from the IPC’s technical manual and past declarations (e.g., Somalia 2011, Sudan 2024) shows reliance on weight-height measurements with a 30% threshold, suggesting the Gaza adjustment may reflect political pressure rather than scientific rigor, especially given reliance on unverifiable Hamas-linked data, as highlighted by a 2024 FDD report on Gaza Health Ministry inaccuracies.
The change, buried in a footnote, aligns with a July 29, 2025 UN alert claiming widespread starvation in Gaza, but lacks transparent data validation, raising questions about the IPC’s credibility, especially when contrasted with ongoing severe food crises in other regions like Ethiopia and DRC, where stricter metrics persist.
UN-Backed Famine Watchdog Quietly Changed Standards, Easing Way To Declare Famine in Gaza
The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification used a different metric for Gaza than it has used for other conflict zones, changing its rules to make it possible to declare a famine in the Strip
The U.N.-affiliated watchdog group that recently declared a “worst-case scenario of famine” in Gaza quietly changed one of its key reporting metrics while doing so, making it easier to formally declare that there is a famine in the Hamas-controlled territory.
Richard Goldberg, a former White House and National Security Council staffer in both Trump administrations who spent a decade performing humanitarian aid oversight on Capitol Hill, told the Free Beacon the IPC standards are another example of U.N. malfeasance.
“If you keep pulling the thread here, you start to understand this is one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the world,” said Goldberg, who now serves as a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank. “There is no famine in Gaza—the data thresholds don’t support that claim—and yet we have the United Nations changing the rules to fit the desired political outcome.”
More @ Source Freebeacon.com
Hamas data reliability
The reliability of data provided by Hamas, particularly through entities like the Gaza Ministry of Health (MoH) and the Gaza Government Media Office (GMO), has been a subject of significant scrutiny, especially in the context of the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict and the UN’s recent famine declaration for Gaza. Given the current date (05:24 PM PDT, Saturday, August 23, 2025)
Key Points on Hamas Data ReliabilitySource Control and Bias:Hamas, as a designated terrorist organization by the U.S., EU, and others, controls Gaza’s governance, including its health and media infrastructure. The Gaza MoH and GMO, which supply much of the data cited by the UN and IPC, operate under Hamas oversight. This raises concerns about potential manipulation to align with political narratives, such as exaggerating civilian casualties or famine conditions to garner international sympathy or pressure Israel.
The Washington Institute’s 2025 report notes that since early November 2023, the Gaza MoH shifted to a “media reports” methodology for fatality counts after northern hospitals shut down, leading to irreconcilable discrepancies with traditional data collection. This suggests a lack of rigorous, on-the-ground verification.
Discrepancies and Inconsistencies:The Washington Institute analysis highlights significant gaps in fatality data, with media-reported figures underrepresenting male deaths (likely combatants) compared to MoH claims. For instance, by March 18, 2025, only 1,192 men were reported killed in northern Gaza despite heavy fighting, a number deemed implausible.
Al Jazeera’s April 17, 2025 update cites 62,614 Palestinian deaths, with 76% of bodies recovered, but this figure relies on GMO claims without independent corroboration. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) in April 2025 criticized the UN-OCHA for echoing Hamas data, noting a consistent 70% women-and-children casualty ratio that defies battlefield logic and was maintained even when total numbers fluctuated.
UN and IPC Reliance on Hamas Data:The Washington Free Beacon’s August 12, 2025 article, linked in the target post, reveals that the IPC’s July 29, 2025 famine report used “internal documents” and data from Hamas-linked sources like Ard el Insan, which faces allegations of being a terror front. The report’s malnutrition figures (e.g., 16.5% MUAC in Gaza City) hinge on this data, lacking public transparency for external validation.
Human Rights Watch’s November 2023 verification of October 7 attack videos contrasts with the UN’s reliance on unverified Gaza MoH data, underscoring a double standard in data scrutiny.
Historical Context and Expert Skepticism:Past analyses, like the JCPA’s, point to fabricated or exaggerated claims, such as the October 17, 2023 Al Ahli Hospital explosion death toll, later debunked by Israeli and independent investigations. Hamas’s 212-page casualty list post-skepticism was riddled with inconsistencies (e.g., duplicate IDs, implausible ages).
Aid workers and analysts (e.g., quoted in the Free Beacon) express concern over the IPC’s shift to a 15% MUAC threshold for Gaza, contrasting with the 30% weight-height standard used elsewhere (e.g., Somalia 2011, Sudan 2024), suggesting tailored metrics to fit a predetermined outcome.
Current Implications (August 2025):With the ceasefire effective since January 19, 2025 (per Al Jazeera), improved access should allow better data collection, yet the IPC’s reliance on Hamas data persists. This raises questions about whether logistical challenges or political motives drive the continued use of questionable sources.
Social media reactions in the X thread (e.g., @CocaCamhi , @TheThornBird ) reflect growing distrust among humanitarian and public circles, with some calling for defunding the UN due to perceived bias.
AssessmentReliability: Hamas-provided data is widely considered unreliable due to its political control, lack of independent oversight, and evidence of manipulation. The UN and IPC’s dependence on this data, especially with adjusted metrics, undermines their credibility, as noted in the target post’s critique.
Evidence Gaps: Without transparent, third-party audits (e.g., by neutral NGOs or international bodies like WHO with unhindered access), the data’s accuracy remains suspect. The shift to MUAC and a lower threshold for Gaza, unique among global famine assessments, suggests a politically motivated adjustment rather than a scientific one.
Counterpoints: Proponents might argue that Hamas data is the only available source given Gaza’s isolation, but this does not negate the need for validation, especially when historical patterns show exaggeration (e.g., JCPA’s 70% ratio critique).
Conclusion: The reliability of Hamas data is highly questionable, supported by documented inconsistencies, political incentives, and the UN’s questionable methodological shifts. For a more accurate picture, independent verification—potentially feasible post-ceasefire—remains essential. The target post’s assertion of “unverifiable, Hamas-linked ‘data’” aligns with this analysis, suggesting the UN’s famine declaration may reflect fraud rather than fact.