Human Rights Watch researchers resign after report on Palestinian right of return blocked

Human Rights Watch paused publication of an unpublished 33‑page report that concluded Israel’s long‑standing denial of Palestinians’ right to return could amount to the crime against humanity of “other inhumane acts.” The study, begun in January 2025 as a follow‑up to HRW’s November 2024 Gaza displacement report, documented recent displacements in Gaza and the West Bank and chronic hardship among refugees displaced in 1948 and 1967 in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria, and cited the Rome Statute and a 2018 ICC pre‑trial finding on the Rohingya as precedent. Internal emails show senior HRW staff raised legal and reputational concerns, warning the draft’s scope could be read as implicating all diaspora Palestinians and might be “misread… as a call to demographically extinguish the Jewishness of the Israeli state.” Senior managers, including chief advocacy officer Bruno Stagno Ugarte and acting program director Tom Porteous, urged narrowing the focus to recent forced displacements. Days before taking over as executive director, Philippe Bolopion told staff the report would be paused; some colleagues say he wanted its findings narrowed. The surprise decision led to the resignations of HRW’s entire Israel‑Palestine team — director Omar Shakir and assistant researcher Milena Ansari — who said pausing the report broke normal approval processes and prioritized fear of political backlash over international law. HRW said the report “raised complex and consequential issues” and has been “paused pending further analysis and research.” Human Rights Watch paused publication of a report by Omar Shakir and co‑author Hanni Ansari after internal concerns, prompting at least one letter protesting the pause and warning that shelving the piece could damage HRW’s credibility and create perceptions of undue interference. The draft, completed in August 2025, had gone through HRW’s normal editing and review by eight departments, during which some colleagues raised objections to a novel legal argument that critics say is moving from academic debate into advocacy. HRW defended its review processes, said the dispute is not about rejecting the Palestinian right of return, and noted it has long supported that right; it has commissioned an independent review to learn lessons from the episode. Former HRW director Kenneth Roth supported sending the report back for a more defensible legal interpretation and rejected claims the pause was politically motivated. The piece was co‑published with Jewish Currents. Human Rights Watch paused publication of a 33‑page report that concluded Israel’s long‑standing denial of Palestinians’ right to return could amount to the crime against humanity of “other inhumane acts.” The study, begun in January 2025 as a follow‑up to a November 2024 Gaza displacement report, documented recent displacements in Gaza and the West Bank and chronic hardship among refugees displaced in 1948 and 1967 in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria, citing the Rome Statute and a 2018 ICC pre‑trial finding on the Rohingya as precedent. Internal emails show senior HRW staff raised legal and reputational concerns, arguing the draft cast too wide a net (potentially implicating broad segments of the Palestinian diaspora) and could be “misread… as a call to demographically extinguish the Jewishness of the Israeli state.” Senior managers urged narrowing the focus to recent forced displacements; days before Philippe Bolopion became executive director he notified staff the report would be paused. The surprise decision led to the resignations of HRW’s entire Israel‑Palestine team — director Omar Shakir and assistant researcher Milena Ansari — who said blocking the report violated normal approval processes and prioritized fear of political backlash over international law. HRW said the report “raised complex and consequential issues” and has been “paused pending further analysis and research.” Human Rights Watch has faced internal and public pushback after pausing publication of a report on Israel–Palestine that drew on a novel legal argument. One letter protested the pause, warning that shelving the report would damage HRW’s credibility and create perceptions of undue interference. HRW defended its review processes as robust and said it has long supported the Palestinian right of return; the organization has commissioned an independent review to “learn lessons” from the episode. Former HRW director Kenneth Roth urged sending the draft back for a more defensible legal interpretation and rejected claims the move was politically motivated. The dispute—over moving an academic legal argument into advocacy—exposed an internal conflict about how far HRW should push that line and how to handle sensitive Israel–Palestine reporting. Authors Omar Shakir and Hanni Ansari completed the draft in August 2025; it underwent HRW’s usual editing and review by eight departments, during which some colleagues raised concerns. The piece was co‑published with Jewish Currents.