Genocide Deniers Call Gaza Starvation A ‘Hoax’ By Citing UNICEF—Which Reported Famine 86%

By ScheerPost66%

8/8/2026, 6:45:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Confirmation Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 42.6% saturation with 450 hits. Analysis detected 2,577 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,057 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70% and a BS Rank of 86% (4,540 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 85.20% of the article peer group.

US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee—who last year admitted Gazans were starving—was among those noting a new global hunger report by the UN agency that reported the 2025 famine as it unfolded. 
Brett Wilkins Common Dreams 
For nearly three years, Israeli officials and their US backers have denounced United Nations agencies reporting the facts of Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza as lies, but now many of them are citing the latest global hunger study by the United Nations Children’s Fund as proof that last year’s famine that killed at least hundreds of Palestinians in the coastal exclave was a “hoax.” 
The UNICEF-led State of Palestine Nutrition Cluster Coordination Meeting report , published on July 22, shows decreased hunger rates in areas of Gaza accessible to those conducting the survey. 
With Israeli forces controlling the majority of Gaza’s territory and much of the strip flattened and inaccessible, the report’s authors warned that “the survey findings should therefore be interpreted as representative.” 
This did not stop the Israeli government and media, and Israel’s supporters and sympathetic media abroad, from citing UNICEF—which on Thursday said that Israel is killing about one child a day in Gaza despite a so-called ceasefire—and the broader UN, which they formerly accused of “lies,”  antisemitism ,” “blood libels,” and “hoaxes” throughout a war that a UN commission of inquiry called a genocide . 
“Once again, facts prevail over fiction,” Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon said . 
“UN bodies are acknowledging that the false narrative against Israel is falling apart.” 
US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee may have forgotten his acknowledgement last year— along with President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance —that Palestinians were “starving” in Gaza, aspersing the media for reporting on the starvation . 
For 3 yrs since Hamas butchered over 1200 ppl including at least 46 Americans the media has said @Israel has starved children. 
But UNICEF, no friend to Israel shows that focus should have been on the rest of the region where the real tragedy lives unnoticed. https://t.co/GxvhMWSzzB 
- Ambassador Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) August 7, 2026 
Eylon Levy—the British-Israeli former spokesperson for Israel known for purveying disinformation like the infamous October 7  beheaded babies  lie—also ran with the narrative, posting on X that “the ‘Gaza Famine’ was always a hoax.” 
UN agencies and other humanitarian groups started sounding the alarm on looming starvation in Gaza in the weeks after Israel began annihilating the strip in retaliation for the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023. 
By February 2024, UNICEF warned that “famine is imminent” in Gaza as the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs cited the deaths of six infants from malnutrition and dehydration. 
As Gaza’s hunger crisis worsened under Israel’s  complete siege ,” UN agencies, including UNICEF, regularly warned about starvation in the strip. 
In February 2024, UN officials were accusing Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war—one of the alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes for which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant , his former defense minister, are wanted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. 
Michael Fakhri, the top UN expert on the right to food, accused Israel of genocidal forced starvation of Gazans. 
In August 2025, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC)—the UN-aided top global authority on hunger crises— declared a Phase 5, or “catastrophic,” famine in Gaza as at least hundreds of Palestinians perished from malnutrition and related causes. 
“Famine is now a grim reality for children in Gaza,” UNICEF executive director Catherine Russell said at the time. 
“As we have repeatedly warned, the signs were unmistakable: children with wasted bodies, too weak to cry or eat; babies dying from hunger and preventable disease; parents arriving at clinics with nothing left to feed their children.” 
The IPC lifted Gaza’s famine designation in December 2025, citing improved—but still highly restricted—access of humanitarian aid into Gaza following a nominal ceasefire agreement reached two months earlier. 
However, last month the IPC published an analysis showing that from mid-April to the end of June, more than 1.2 million people, or 59% of Gaza’s population, were experiencing Phase 3 (crisis) or worse levels of food insecurity. 
This included about 212,000 people in Phase 4 (emergency). 
“The situation remains fragile,” IPC warned. 
Many of the people who deny that Israeli forces have killed or wounded a quarter million Palestinians in Gaza or that Israel is committing genocide there—a conclusion reached by numerous UN officials , scholars , jurists, rights groups , and the approximately 20 nations that formally joined South Africa’s pending genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice—are the same ones who have denied not only the Gaza famine, but that anyone was ever starving there. 
When the UN confirms that there’s no starvation in Gaza, you know the anti-Israel crowd has been lying. 
Will the “genocide crowd” finally shut up? 
I doubt it. https://t.co/H7JuGbU1IK 
- David M Friedman (@DavidM_Friedman) August 7, 2026 
They asked to see photos of starving Palestinians , and when shown them, they, and corporate media outlets including The New York Times , attempted to explain or even dismiss the evidence by claiming the emaciated—or often dead—children suffered from preexisting conditions, as if that somehow absolved Israel for their deaths. 
Others posted images of a Gaza market stocked with food or overweight Palestinians in a bid to debunk the fact of starvation in Gaza. 
Still others dismissed images of starving Gazans as Hamas propaganda, with US media personality Megyn Kelly opining that Palestinians are “fine having their own children starve just as long as they can put them on camera.” 
Editor’s Note : A t a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. 
Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. 
We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news. 
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon . 
Please share this story and help us grow our network! 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.8%ScheerPost: 8.1%ScheerPost: 7.5%Confirmation Bias18.8%This article: 4.4%ScheerPost: 0.2%ScheerPost: 0.2%Anchoring Bias4.4%This article: 14.6%ScheerPost: 1.5%ScheerPost: 1.6%Availability Heuristic14.6%This article: 2.9%ScheerPost: 0.4%ScheerPost: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic2.9%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.7%ScheerPost: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 1.0%ScheerPost: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%ScheerPost: 6.7%ScheerPost: 5.8%Framing Effect3.5%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.1%ScheerPost: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.1%ScheerPost: 0.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.3%ScheerPost: 0.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%ScheerPost: 1.3%ScheerPost: 1.5%Pessimism Bias2.2%This article: 42.6%ScheerPost: 7.2%ScheerPost: 7.4%Negativity Bias42.6%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.8%ScheerPost: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.8%ScheerPost: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.2%ScheerPost: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%ScheerPost: 1.7%ScheerPost: 1.3%In-Group Bias8.0%This article: 7.4%ScheerPost: 0.6%ScheerPost: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 1.0%ScheerPost: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.1%ScheerPost: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.3%ScheerPost: 0.6%ScheerPost: 0.6%Recency Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.1%ScheerPost: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.1%ScheerPost: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%ScheerPost: 1.4%ScheerPost: 1.5%Ad Hominem9.7%This article: 4.8%ScheerPost: 0.7%ScheerPost: 0.6%Straw Man4.8%This article: 15.8%ScheerPost: 2.6%ScheerPost: 2.4%Appeal to Authority15.8%This article: 1.7%ScheerPost: 1.1%ScheerPost: 0.9%False Dilemma1.7%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.6%ScheerPost: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.2%ScheerPost: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.1%ScheerPost: 7.2%ScheerPost: 6.6%Hasty Generalization6.1%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.2%ScheerPost: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.1%ScheerPost: 0.4%ScheerPost: 0.4%Bandwagon2.1%This article: 9.4%ScheerPost: 4.7%ScheerPost: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion9.4%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 1.1%ScheerPost: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.2%ScheerPost: 1.7%ScheerPost: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.2%This article: 3.6%ScheerPost: 0.2%ScheerPost: 0.2%Tu Quoque3.6%This article: 2.9%ScheerPost: 0.7%ScheerPost: 0.9%Burden of Proof2.9%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.4%ScheerPost: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.2%ScheerPost: 1.6%ScheerPost: 2.0%Anecdotal9.2%This article: 2.4%ScheerPost: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.0%No True Scotsman2.4%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.4%ScheerPost: 0.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.2%ScheerPost: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.1%ScheerPost: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 1.6%ScheerPost: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 4.9%ScheerPost: 0.5%ScheerPost: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection4.9%This article: 35.8%ScheerPost: 7.8%ScheerPost: 9.3%Biased Writer Voice35.8%This article: 9.7%ScheerPost: 1.7%ScheerPost: 2.1%Indoctrination9.7%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 4.6%ScheerPost: 4.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ScheerPost: 0.2%ScheerPost: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%ScheerPost: 1.7%ScheerPost: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.8%

1057 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers20%attributed speech843writer words
Selected voice

Eylon Levy

100%flagged-word coverage
36 attributed words17% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+59.4 ptsWriter: 40.6%Eylon Levy: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -12.3 ptsWriter: 12.3%Eylon Levy: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-12.2 ptsWriter: 12.2%Eylon Levy: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.