Human Rights Watch director quits over spiked report on Israel’s ‘crime against humanity’

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has spiked its own report describing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as a “crime against humanity”. It’s Israel-Palestine director Omar Shakir resigned in protest at the decision.

The report, which had been legally approved and was ready for publication, addressed Israel’s denial of Palestinians’ legal ‘right of return’ to their homes and lands. Hundreds of thousands were violently expelled by Zionist militias and UK military in 1948. Many more have been dispossessed or killed since and Israel has forcibly expelled Palestinians from refugee camps.

The report analysed field work in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. Despite passing successfully through all HRW’s checklist stages, new executive director Philippe Bolopion shelved it. It was due to go public last December, but Shakir was informed that it had been spiked a fortnight before.

Bolopion’s killing of the report came after a senior HRW official objected on the grounds that it would undermine Israel’s apartheid. Or, as the official put it, that it might:

demographically extinguish the Jewishness of the Israeli state.

‘Lost faith’ in Human Rights Watch leadership

Shakir told Drop Site News that he had lost faith in HRW’s leadership after a decade of hard work:

I’ve given every bit of myself to the work for a decade. I’ve defended the work in very, very difficult circumstances. I have lost faith in our senior leadership’s fidelity to the core way that we do our work, to the integrity of our work, at least in the context of Israel, Palestine.

The refugees I interviewed deserve to know why their stories aren’t being told.

Shakir’s Palestinian researcher Milena Ansari also resigned, leaving HRW without an Israel-Palestine team.

In an attempt to justify its decision, HRW said in a statement that the report was “complex“:

The report in question raised complex and consequential issues. 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. This process is ongoing.

Bill Frelick, HRW’s Refugees and Migrant head, claimed he did not object to Palestinians’ legal right of return. He then questioned whether it really applied any more – in part, ironically, because some Palestinians might have obtained citizenship elsewhere:

To be clear, I am not objecting to our position that the Right of Return (RoR) is, indeed, a human right and that denying the right of return is a human rights violation. I do not think, however, that we have strong grounds for asserting that the denial of this right is a Crime Against Humanity (CAH)…

…I also question the strategic value of HRW advocating in 2025 for Palestinian refugees and their descendants to reclaim homes in present-day Israel that were lost in 1948…

… Does the suffering (and claims) of descendants of refugees who lost their homes in 1948 weaken over time? How does HRW assess whether descendants of refugees from 1948 have maintained ties that keep their claims viable? Does having citizenship in another country have impact on those claims? Are these claims unique to the descendants of Palestinian refugees or do they apply to the descendants of all refugees from all places throughout history?

At least ten percent of Israelis hold dual nationality – probably considerably more now. Iran’s effective retaliation to Israel’s aggression in June 2025 saw a flood of Israelis apply for passports in their original states. Frelick also questioned whether Israel was deliberately causing harm by preventing Palestinians returning to their homes:

Per the requirement of “intentionally” causing great suffering, is Israel’s intent in denying return to cause great suffering or it is rather motivated by Israel’s national security concerns, demographic engineering, or other motivations, and, therefore, whatever suffering it causes would be incidental or consequential to these purposes but not their intent?

“Losing the organization”

According to Drop Site, HRW’s senior management refused attempts to find a compromise and told staff the report could only be published if its scope was limited to Palestinians displaced since 2023 and excluded refugees in other countries. Some 200 staff signed a letter of complaint; 300 participated in an online all-staff meeting and voiced their objections. All were ignored. Participants in the meeting said that human rights defenders were “losing” HRW and that the spiking was indefensible:

We are losing the organization we love and are so passionate about…

…no one will be able to defend the organization.

Quite.

While HRW is frequently critical of Israel, it has also been accused of going soft on its crimes when it matters. Academic and author Immanuel Ness wrote that HRW demonstrates:

continuous and reliable support for positions advanced by the USA, Britain, and Western states.

Featured image via the Canary