Case Explained: HRW pulls report linking Israel’s denial of right of return to crime against humanity – Middle East Monitor – Legal Perspective

Two senior members of Human Rights Watch (HRW) have resigned following the organisation’s decision to block publication of a major report examining Israel’s denial of the right of return to Palestinian refugees. Omar Shakir, HRW’s Israel-Palestine Director, and Milena Ansari, a Palestinian assistant researcher, announced their resignations in protest of what they described as a breach of the organisation’s internal procedures and principles.

Over 750,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes in 1948 during the creation of the State of Israel, an event Palestinians refer to as the Nakba. The mass expulsions and flight left Palestinians displaced across the region, with many prevented from returning. Today, there are more than 5.9 million registered Palestinian refugees, according to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), living in the illegally occupied Palestinian territory and neighbouring countries, including Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. 

The right to return of Palestinians to their homes and land is affirmed in UN General Assembly Resolution 194, adopted in December 1948, which states that refugees wishing to return should be allowed to do so and that compensation should be provided to those who choose not to return.

“I’ve resigned from  @hrw after 10+ yrs—most as Israel/Palestine Director—after HRW’s new ED pulled a finalized report on the right of return for Palestinian refugees on eve of its release & blocked for weeks its publication in a principled way,” said Shakir announcing his resignation on X.

I’ve resigned from @hrw after 10+ yrs—most as Israel/Palestine Director—after HRW’s new ED pulled a finalized report on the right of return for Palestinian refugees on eve of its release & blocked for weeks its publication in a principled way. Full story:

— Omar Shakir (@OmarSShakir) February 3, 2026

The 43-page report, titled “‘Our Souls Are in the Homes We Left:’ Israel’s Denial of Palestinians’ Right to Return and Crimes Against Humanity”, was finalised after months of research and fieldwork, including interviews with refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. It argued that Israel’s decades-long policy of preventing Palestinian refugees from returning constitutes a “crime against humanity” under international law, specifically falling within the category of “other inhumane acts” outlined in the Rome Statute.

According to Shakir, the report completed HRW’s full internal review process, including legal review, and was scheduled for publication on December 4, 2025. But just weeks before release, newly appointed Executive Director Philippe Bolopion halted its publication, citing concerns raised by other senior officials. “I’ve lost faith in our senior leadership’s fidelity to the core way that we do our work,” Shakir told Drop Site News. “At least in the context of Israel-Palestine.”

READ: The international community sold out the Palestinians decades ago on the right of return

Internal correspondence reveals that Bill Frelick, Director of HRW’s Refugee and Migrant Rights Division, raised “strategic and legal” concerns outside the formal review process, despite previously signing off on the report. 

While Human Rights Watch has long affirmed that Palestinian refugees have a right of return under international law, the internal dispute centred on whether Israel’s denial of those right amounts to a crime against humanity. Bolopion, who blocked the report’s release, acknowledged this stating: “The concern was not that Palestinians have a right to return, which is HRW policy, but whether or not the denial of the right of return amounted to a crime against humanity for 1948 and 1967 refugees.”

Shakir and Ansari disputed those objections, noting that HRW had previously invoked the same legal framework in cases such as the displacement of the Chagossians by the UK and US. They argue that HRW’s legal standards are now being inconsistently applied when it comes to Israel. “We have once again run into Human Rights Watch’s systemic ‘Israel Exception,’” said former MENA Director of HRW Sarah Leah Whitson. “Work critical of Israel is subjected to exceptional review and arbitrary processes.”

In his resignation letter, Shakir criticised what he called a growing trend of “Palestine exceptionalism” within HRW. “There’s a thing about Palestine—it often opens the door to other unprincipled compromises,” he wrote.

Shakir and Ansari’s report aimed to bridge that gap by connecting Israel’s policy to current legal standards. Drawing on International Criminal Court precedent, they argued that preventing return in cases of long-term displacement—such as that of the Rohingya in Myanmar—could constitute an inhumane act under international law. Their report extended this reasoning to the case of Palestinian refugees.

Internal protests followed the decision to shelve the report. More than 200 HRW staff members signed a letter condemning the leadership’s actions, and internal memos show frustration over what many saw as the politicisation of HRW’s research standards. In a virtual all-staff meeting, employees warned the decision would severely damage HRW’s credibility in the region.

Leadership at HRW maintains that the report lacked sufficient legal and factual grounding to meet the organisation’s standards, and that further review is required. Bolopion has commissioned an independent law firm to examine HRW’s internal review processes and said that the report may yet be revised and released.

Still, Shakir and Ansari contend the move signals a retreat from the organisation’s founding principles. “Palestinian refugees deserve to know why their stories aren’t being told,” Shakir said.

Online, legal experts and campaigners have criticised HRW over its decision. “HRW worried that the findings ‘will be misread by many… as a call to demographically extinguish the Jewishness of the Israeli state’” said human rights attorney professor Noura Erakat, highlighting the contradiction in one of the arguments presented by HRW for shelving the report. 

“Curious how @hrw seeks to end #Apartheid but maintain a Jewish majority manufactured and sustained by law.” Erakat added. 

HRW “worried that the findings “will be misread by many… as a call to demographically extinguish the Jewishness of the Israeli state”

Curious how ⁦@hrw⁩ seeks to end #Apartheid but maintain a Jewish majority manufactured and sustained by law.

— Noura Erakat (@4noura) February 3, 2026

READ: The ‘Law of Return’ is being tested by Ethiopian Jews as an ‘Israel First’ policy begins to bite