IPC monitor says ‘famine conditions’ over but Gaza food security still ‘critical’; Israel rejects findings

COGAT slams ‘distorted and biased’ report, says 500,000 tons of food has entered Strip since ceasefire, well over the enclave’s nutritional requirements as stated by the IPC

The IPC famine monitoring organization stated on Friday that food security conditions in the entire Gaza Strip “remain critical,” in a new report covering the second half of October and all of November that classified the territory as being in its “Emergency” Phase 4 category — the fourth highest of its five levels of food insecurity.

The organization said, however, that the situation has improved since the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas went into effect on October 10 due to increased volumes of aid going into the territory, and changed its determination of Gaza from Phase 5 — Catastrophe — in July and August to Phase 4.

In the IPC’s August report, it said “famine” had broken out in Gaza during the second half of July and throughout August. But its new report found that “famine conditions” were no longer prevailing in that district, or anywhere else in the territory. Israel’s COGAT agency, which coordinates the entry of aid into Gaza, strongly rejected the IPC’s findings that the humanitarian situation in the Strip remained critical.

It described the IPC report as a “distorted, biased and unfounded picture of the humanitarian situation,” which suffered from “severe gaps in data collection” and relies on “sources that do not reflect the full scope of humanitarian assistance.”

COGAT also stated that some 500,000 metric tons of food have entered the territory since October 10, far outweighing the needs of the Gaza population according to metrics from the World Food Programme, and as accepted by the IPC itself.

According to the new study, some one million people faced high levels of acute food insecurity ranking as IPC Phase 3 between 16 October and 30 November 2025, while 500,000 people were still in Emergency Phase 4 levels of food insecurity, and 100,000 people were still in Phase 5 — Catastrophe. The organization projected that these conditions would improve in the period from December to April however.

“Despite the improved situation, the population of the Gaza Strip still faces high levels of acute food insecurity and acute malnutrition. Although humanitarian assistance, including food aid, has increased, only basic survival needs are being met,” the organization claimed.

“While humanitarian aid is ongoing, it barely meets people’s survival needs,” the IPC study said, adding “People’s diets remain poor” and that while “more nutritious foods, such as fresh vegetables and fruits are available in markets, most families cannot afford to buy them.” It also stated that hygiene and sanitation conditions “continue to be very poor, accelerating the spread of acute respiratory infections (ARIs), diarrhea and skin infections, especially among children.”

COGAT, however, vigorously challenged the IPC study’s findings.

“COGAT strongly rejects the claims and conclusions presented in the IPC report published today (Friday), which once again portrays a distorted, biased and unfounded picture of the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip.” the agency said of the new study.

“The report relies on severe gaps in data collection and on sources that do not reflect the full scope of humanitarian assistance. As such, it misleads the international community, fuels disinformation, and presents a false depiction of the reality on the ground.”

COGAT pointed out that between 600 to 800 aid trucks have been entering the Gaza Strip every day since late October, 70 percent of which carry food aid.

“In this context, nearly 30,000 food trucks carrying more than 500,000 tons of food entered the Gaza Strip throughout the ceasefire period,” the agency said.

The new IPC report also failed to include consolidated, weighted data on malnutrition rates in Gaza with which it would be able to evaluate its claims from August that famine had broken out in the Gaza governorate.

Such data is readily available from the Global Nutrition Cluster organization, which monitors malnutrition on the ground around the world, including in Gaza, and which has found that malnutrition rates never crossed famine levels even in July and August, and actually remained 23 percent under that level even at the peak of food insecurity.

The IPC itself uses Global Nutrition Cluster data in its reports, including in the latest update on Gaza, but failed to show the consolidated, weighted data used by that organization.

According to consolidated, weighted malnutrition data from the Global Nutrition Cluster’s State of Palestine department, malnutrition peaked in July and August, and then steadily improved in September, October and November.

The new IPC report did for the first time include data on non-trauma mortality rates in Gaza during 2025, one of IPC’s three key metrics for determining whether famine has broken out.

The organization asserted, however, that the data was incomplete. The data it did present from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry did show non-trauma mortality and deaths specifically attributed to malnutrition having spiked in July and August.

But those rates nevertheless appear well under the threshold for famine, although the specific metrics available were different from those usually used to evaluate famine conditions.

“The manner in which the IPC conducted itself during the preparation of the report raises serious questions regarding its credibility and professional integrity,” said COGAT.

The authors of the report agreed to meet with Israeli professional officials and representatives of the US Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) only after the report had already been written and its conclusions formulated.

“During the meeting, the authors were presented with complete, daily and verified data regarding the volume of food trucks entering the Gaza Strip,” COGAT said. “Despite this, the IPC chose to present a series of excuses regarding the use of the data and relied only partially on the information provided. This conduct does not reflect a legitimate professional disagreement, but rather biased writing based on partial and skewed data, indicating that the report’s conclusions were determined in advance.”