Human Rights Watch’s top Israel-Palestine staffer quits over shelved report criticizing Israel

Israel

The former executive director of Human Rights Watch is defending the group after two staffers quit over allegations that a report accusing Israel of a “crime against humanity” was blocked from publication.

Omar Shakir, the director of Human Rights Watch’s Israel-Palestine team, and assistant researcher Milena Ansari tendered their resignations after they said the organization refused to publish a report concluding that Israel’s denial of the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees amounted to a “crime against humanity.”

“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,” Shakir tweeted earlier in the week.

He linked to an article about the resignations in Jewish Currents. Shakir, who formerly worked as a legal fellow for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has long engaged in pro-Palestinian legal advocacy, is on Jewish Currents’ advisory board.

In a resignation letter obtained by Jewish Currents, Shakir wrote, “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.”

Multiple former Human Rights Watch staffers panned Shakir and his critique, including Ken Roth, the group’s former executive director and himself a vociferous critic of Israel. Roth’s replacement, Philippe Bolopion, was named in November.

“The new @HRW director was right to suspend a report using a novel & unsupported legal theory to contend that denying the right to return to a locale is a crime against humanity,” tweeted Roth, whose father was a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany. “It had been rushed through the review process during a leadership transition.”

Danielle Haas, who served as the senior editor at Human Rights Watch from 2009 to 2023, criticized Shakir sharply in a post on X.

“‘Nourish a wolf,’ Aesop said, ‘and it will eat you.’ For years, @hrw tolerated, placated, excused, and incubated @OmarSShakir as BDSer-turned-Israel/Palestine director. Now it’s their turn to get the ideological mob treatment,” wrote Haas. “His old tricks used v. others, now turned v. them: petitions, division, politics. Appeasement always bites you in the end.”

Shakir served as the lead researcher and author of a 2021 Human Rights Watch report that argued that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians had crossed the threshold into apartheid. The report was widely criticized by Jewish groups at the time. In 2019, he was deported from Israel in accordance with a law that banned entry to foreigners who publicly call for boycotting the Jewish state or its settlements.

NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based pro-Israel advocacy group, wrote in a post on X that the internal dispute at Human Rights Watch served as “a reminder of what happens when an NGO promotes the most extreme activists to positions of influence.”

The episode is casting light on the issue of Palestinian refugees, who many pro-Palestinian advocates believe should be able to return to the homes and communities their families left in 1948. Such a right is widely seen as both out of step with international precedent and a tactic to undo a Jewish majority in Israel.

While Human Rights Watch has long supported a right of return for Palestinian refugees, Shakir told Jewish Currents that the group is more hesitant when applying that principle in practice.

“The one topic,” he said, “even at Human Rights Watch, for which there remains an unwillingness to apply the law and the facts in a principled way is the plight of refugees and their right to return to the homes that they were forced to flee.”

In a statement shared with Jewish Currents and the New York Times, Human Rights Watch stated that the report “raised complex and consequential issues” and its publication was “paused pending further analysis and research.”

“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,” the group said.