Amman, Jordan – February 21, 2024 – A deeply divisive decision by Human Rights Watch’s new leadership has triggered the resignations of its two top researchers for Israel and Palestine, after a report accusing Israel of committing a crime against humanity by denying Palestinian refugees the right of return was abruptly shelved.
Report’s Findings Spark Internal Conflict
Table of Contents
The stalled report, the result of interviews with 53 refugees across camps in Jordan, Syria, and lebanon, connected the displacement of palestinians in 1948 to present-day realities. Omar Shakir, who led the Israel-Palestine division for nearly a decade, and researcher Milena Ansari, both tendered their resignations, citing fears of political backlash as the reason for the report’s suppression.
Human Rights Watch’s new executive director, in an email to staff last week, maintained the disagreement wasn’t about the right of return itself. In a joint statement to The Guardian and Jewish Currents,the institution said,”In our review process,we concluded 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.For that reason, the publication of the report was paused pending further analysis and research.”
The dispute highlights a long-standing tension within the organization and raises questions about the influence of political considerations on human rights advocacy.
concerns Over Political Interference
Shakir, speaking from Amman, asserted the decision to halt the report’s release was unprecedented in his decade with the organization. “This report was assessing the Israeli government’s denial of the right of return on Palestinian refugees,” he explained. “The idea here was to connect the erasure of camps in Gaza with the emptying of camps in the West Bank, with the attacks on UNRWA and the long-standing denial of return.”
He further stated that the report underwent a rigorous seven-month review process, receiving sign-off from all relevant departments, including the legal team. It was even translated into multiple languages and shared with external partners before being pulled on the eve of publication without written explanation. Shakir believes the overriding concern was avoiding a perception of challenging the idea of maintaining Israel as a Jewish state,a concept he argues was “forged through ethnic cleansing and maintained through apartheid.”
“Ultimately,after giving a decade to this organization,I did not feel I could continue when I’ve lost faith in our new leadership’s fidelity to the integrity of what we do best,which is to publish the facts that we document and consistently apply the law,” Shakir said.
Former director Defends Decision
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch and author of righting wrongs: Three Decades on the Front Lines Battling Abusive Governments, offered a contrasting viewpoint. Speaking from Lahore, Pakistan, Roth rejected Shakir’s claims of censorship, arguing the report’s legal basis was flawed.
“If I were still executive director, this report would never have gotten past me,” Roth stated.He argued the central issue wasn’t the right of return-which Human Rights Watch has long supported-but whether denying that right constituted a crime against humanity, a legal claim he deemed “a brand-new theory.”
Roth pointed to a case before the International Criminal Court involving the Rohingya as a point of comparison, noting the court emphasized “extreme suffering” as a prerequisite for classifying denial of return as a crime against humanity. He questioned whether the circumstances of many Palestinian refugees, some of whom are citizens in other countries and leading normal lives, met that threshold.
Nuance and Legal Standards
“You know, some Palestinian refugees may indeed have this great suffering required for it to be a crime against humanity, but a lot of them clearly don’t,” Roth said. “These are the kinds of complexities that need to be addressed, rather than just rush through a 33-page report.”
Shakir countered that Human Rights Watch itself established the legal precedent for considering denial of return a crime against humanity in a 2023 report on the Chagos Islands. he also emphasized the ongoing suffering experienced by generations of Palestinian refugees, citing testimonies from those displaced in Gaza who sought to return home amidst recent conflict.
“The points that Ken make are actually not the arguments that Human Rights Watch has made,” Shakir explained. “We offered to make edits to address any concerns, including to base it on a separate crime against humanity of persecution, which is straightforward.”
Roth maintained that the new executive director, Philippe Bolopion, was simply applying the same standards he would have, ensuring the report was legally sound and defensible. Shakir, however, lamented a shift in priorities, suggesting that political pragmatism had trumped the organization’s commitment to upholding fundamental rights.
“Where is Philippe Bolopion?” Shakir asked, underscoring the lack of transparency surrounding the decision.
