In a significant upheaval within Human Rights Watch (HRW), two members of its Israel and Palestine team have resigned amidst controversy surrounding a blocked report that categorises Israel’s denial of Palestinian refugees’ right to return as a “crime against humanity.” The resignations of Omar Shakir, the director of the team, and assistant researcher Milena Ansari, reflect deeper tensions within the organisation regarding its commitment to its mission and international law.
Resignations Spark Debate on HRW’s Integrity
The decision to halt the publication of the report, which was completed in August 2025, has been described by Shakir as a departure from HRW’s standard practices of transparency and integrity. In his resignation letter, he expressed a profound disillusionment with the organisation, stating, “I have lost my faith in the integrity of how we do our work and our commitment to principled reporting on the facts and application of the law.” Ansari echoed these sentiments, highlighting that the leadership’s choice to suppress the report prioritised potential political repercussions over the organisation’s ethical obligations.
The report in question aimed to address the plight of Palestinian refugees, linking their ongoing suffering to Israel’s long-standing denial of their right to return after being displaced during the 1948 and 1967 conflicts. HRW’s new executive director, Philippe Bolopion, described the situation as a “genuine and good-faith disagreement” among colleagues, asserting that the document required further analysis to align with HRW’s rigorous standards. However, critics within the organisation contend that this rationale masks a reluctance to confront politically sensitive issues related to Israel.
Controversy Over Legal Findings
The report, titled “Our Souls Are in the Homes We Left: Israel’s Denial of Palestinians’ Right to Return and Crimes Against Humanity,” proposed a novel legal argument: that Israel’s actions constitute the crime against humanity known as “other inhumane acts,” as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This designation was intended to address grave abuses not easily categorised under existing legal frameworks, such as apartheid or extermination.
Following its completion, the report underwent HRW’s usual editing process and was reviewed by multiple departments. Yet, concerns about its implications arose, particularly from HRW’s chief advocacy officer, who expressed fears that the conclusions could be misperceived as a challenge to Israel’s demographic composition. Shakir contended that the report was meticulously prepared and fully aligned with HRW’s standards, asserting, “Were there any credible concerns about the research, this would never have happened at HRW, where major Israel/Palestine reports always attract extra scrutiny.”
Internal Backlash and Staff Solidarity
In the wake of the report’s suppression, over 200 HRW employees signed a letter protesting the leadership’s actions, warning that such a decision could undermine the organisation’s credibility and open the door to future interventions that compromise its integrity. They emphasised that HRW’s rigorous vetting process is crucial to maintaining its reputation as an impartial human rights advocate.
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of HRW, defended the leadership’s decision, asserting that the report’s publication was delayed due to concerns over its legal conclusions. He characterised Shakir’s argument as an attempt to circumvent the review process during a transitional period in leadership. Roth claimed that various staff members had highlighted concerns about the report’s validity, which contributed to the decision to pause its release.
The Broader Implications of the Blocked Report
This incident illustrates a broader struggle within HRW and similar organisations to navigate political sensitivities while remaining committed to human rights advocacy. Shakir, who has faced deportation from Israel for his activism, underscored the importance of representing the narratives of Palestinian victims. “Witnessing the anguish in the Palestinians I interviewed who are effectively condemned to lifelong refugee status is among the hardest things I’ve seen,” he remarked.
The controversy raises critical questions about the role of human rights organisations in addressing contentious issues. As public discourse evolves, particularly regarding Israel and Palestine, the challenge remains: how to advocate for vulnerable populations without succumbing to political pressures that may silence vital truths.
Why it Matters
The fallout from this situation at Human Rights Watch is not just an internal matter; it signifies a crucial moment in the struggle for Palestinian rights and the integrity of international human rights advocacy. The suppression of significant findings related to the right of return not only affects the organisation’s credibility but also potentially silences the voices of those most impacted by displacement. As debates intensify over such fundamental issues, the balance between political sensitivity and principled advocacy will be tested, shaping the future of human rights work in the region and beyond.
