Sure, and I don't see credible evidence that they are[0]. Just more of the same false narratives pushed by the all too common antisemitic UN officials[1].
[0] https://unwatch.org/hillel-neuer-on-sky-news-fabricated-u-n-...
[1] https://unwatch.org/legal-analysis-of-un-food-rapporteur-mic...
An NGO "Agence France-Presse has described...as 'a lobby group with strong ties to Israel'" [1] is not a credible source for disputing two separate groups at the UN, the IPF and--at this point--more than a few independent investigations.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Watch#cite_note-GazaAFP-5
This doesn't make the information they are putting out false, the UN bias against Israel is well documented by many sources.
It makes it unreliable. If you’re claiming the IPC is an unreliable source, you need a reliable source to back you up on that. (And neither article actually cites any data that would undermine the IPC’s case.)
I’m genuinely open to being convinced. Another comment raised the issue of insufficient CDRs for IPC 5 status, which may or may not be relevant. But these UN Watch interviews are rally the base stuff, not argument.
Specifically pages 10-14 for an intermediate summary, or pages 29-30 for a shorter one, with chapter 1 providing the full details.
Curious to hear your thoughts if any
I think the most detailed rebuttal to the recent IPC claims is this one[0] backed by the COGAT[1] published aid data. There are other responses to prior IPC reports that go into more methodological details[2] as well. The impression I get overall is that the IPC is largely just cherry picking incomplete data to create a false narrative[3]. IPC forecasts also basically never end up being accurate historically either.
[0] https://govextra.gov.il/media/orumgksl/politics-disguised-as...
[1] https://gaza-aid-data.gov.il/main/#AidData
[2] https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/generalpage/transparency-and-m...
[3] https://govextra.gov.il/media/sftjdsg2/cogat-humanitarian-ef...