Today the IPC (Integrated Food Security Phase Classification) officially classified Gaza as being in famine (Phase 5). Anyone who googles the term finds, at the very top and sponsored, an Israeli government portal that discredits the IPC. That isn’t information policy. It’s a reckless media war against reality.

What the IPC is, and what “famine” means

The IPC is the international reference standard used by UN organisations, governments and NGOs. It works with a uniform methodology, clearly defined data sources and independent review procedures. Its assessments are robust and comparable. They are not opinions, they are measurements.

“Famine” is the most extreme category, and it is only declared when three conditions are met at the same time:

• severe gaps in food supply,

• widespread acute malnutrition (especially among children),

• significantly increased mortality.

Only then is Phase 5 declared.

The current classification describes a structural crisis: ongoing violence, forced displacement, systematic blockages of access to aid and trade, and the collapse of agriculture, markets, and water, energy and health systems. Gaza is a humanitarian catastrophe.

How it is measured, and what disinformation claims

The situation is not “estimated”. It is determined by combining several strands of data, field screenings and independent review. Where mortality figures are missing, recognised health and context indicators are triangulated. The process is documented and verifiable.

This is exactly where disinformation comes in. An Israeli propaganda narrative claims the famine was “invented by a change in methodology”, that the measurement was “tweaked” to produce higher figures. That is simply false.

The facts:

• WHZ (weight-for-height Z-score): weight in relation to height, according to WHO standards.

• MUAC (mid-upper arm circumference): the circumference of the upper arm, measured with a tape.

Both methods are recognised by the WHO, and both identify children at risk. The often-cited 30% (WHZ) and 15% (MUAC) are equivalent thresholds for extremely widespread acute malnutrition, like Celsius and Fahrenheit: different scales, same statement.

There are practical reasons why MUAC is often used in Gaza. Under bombardment and displacement, you need a method that works without a measuring board, scales or electricity: fast, robust and reliable. Without MUAC, there would be no data at all in many places.

You can’t “invent” a famine with a tape measure. The IPC always requires a combination of several pillars (nutrition, food supply and mortality) plus independent review. Switching methods cannot conjure up a famine.

Obscuring instead of informing

Once the expert assessment is in, its legitimacy becomes the target. Instead of addressing the situation, the Israeli government shifts the debate to the supposed “bias” of the measurement. The spin (“tailor-made”, “criteria bent”) is meant to discredit standards, even though these thresholds have applied worldwide for years, including where there is no war.

Escalation: “blood libel”

This line has now culminated in Prime Minister Netanyahu branding the famine allegations a “blood libel”, a term that stands for one of the oldest antisemitic smears.

That is doubly devastating:

1. It implicitly brands UN standards, aid organisations and journalists as antisemites.

2. It devalues the term itself, with massive consequences for Jewish communities worldwide.

Why this is so dangerous for us

When “antisemitism” is misused as a defensive label, it weakens our ability to name real antisemitism clearly. Authorities, media and society hesitate longer because they have previously seen the term used as a political weapon. Fewer complaints are filed, fewer cases are pursued and protective measures come later.

The strategy is transparent: criticism is to be delegitimised by stamping it as antisemitic. But the effect is the opposite. Real antisemites move into the mainstream because the term is hollowed out. Positions that are obviously antisemitic then pass as a “legitimate counter-position”.

Our duty: drawing clear distinctions

That is exactly why we need clarity:

• Name and sanction antisemitism precisely.

• Don’t label well-founded criticism of government action as hatred of Jews.

• Openly reject the misuse of the term antisemitism.

Conclusion

With this policy, Netanyahu is endangering not only Israel’s future but also the safety of Jews worldwide, and the fight against hatred of Jews. It is our duty to push back.