Human Rights Watch’s two‑person Israel‑Palestine team announced their resignations after the organization’s new executive director halted a report that classified Israel’s denial of the Palestinian right of return as a crime against humanity.
What happened
Omar Shakir, who led the team for nearly a decade and assistant researcher Milena Ansari said the report was pulled on the eve of its scheduled release. The draft, which had been signed off by all relevant departments—including legal, women’s rights, children’s rights, refugee rights and international justice—had already been uploaded to HR Watch’s website backend, translated into multiple languages and briefed to external partners.
According to Shakir, the report was based on interviews with 53 refugees in camps across Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and linked the historical expulsions of 1948 to the ongoing displacement in Gaza and the West Bank. The new executive director provided no written explanation for the decision, and Shakir alleges the move was driven by concerns about “challenging a political preference” and maintaining “the Jewishness of the Israeli state.”
Why it matters
The dispute highlights a tension within HR Watch between its longstanding endorsement of the Palestinian right of return and the organization’s standards for legal interpretation. Former executive director Kenneth Roth argued that labeling the denial of return as a crime against humanity is a “brand‑new theory” that lacks sufficient legal precedent, citing the International Criminal Court’s limited guidance from the Rohingya case.
Shakir countered that HR Watch previously applied a similar legal framework in its 2023 Chagos Islands report, suggesting inconsistency if the new leadership rejects the same reasoning. The episode raises questions about HR Watch’s editorial independence, its handling of politically sensitive topics, and the potential impact on its credibility among advocates and donors.
What may happen next
Analysts expect HR Watch could either reopen the review to address the legal concerns raised by its new leadership or permanently shelve the report, which would mark the first time the organization has halted a report at the final stage for “pragmatic” reasons. A re‑examination might lead to a revised document that narrows its legal conclusions or frames the issue under a different category of crime against humanity, such as persecution.
Should the organization choose to publish a revised version, it may trigger renewed scrutiny from both supporters of the Palestinian right of return and critics who view the legal framing as overreaching. Conversely, a decision not to proceed could prompt further resignations or public statements from staff who experience the organization is compromising its mission.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the HR Watch Israel‑Palestine team resign?
Both Omar Shakir and Milena Ansari said they resigned because the new executive director blocked the publication of their report on the Palestinian right of return without providing a written explanation, and they lost confidence in the leadership’s commitment to the organization’s standards.
What reason did HR Watch give for pausing the report?
HR Watch stated that “aspects of the research and the factual basis for our legal conclusions needed to be strengthened to meet Human Rights Watch’s high standards,” and therefore the publication was paused pending further analysis and research.
What legal issue is at the center of the dispute?
The debate centers on whether Israel’s denial of the Palestinian right of return can be classified as a crime against humanity—a legal theory that former HR Watch executive Kenneth Roth describes as “brand‑new” and that the organization had previously applied in a 2023 Chagos Islands report.
How do you think this internal conflict could affect the broader human‑rights landscape?
Worth a look