Omar Shaker, the former official responsible for Israeli and Palestinian affairs at Human Rights Watch, who recently resigned from his position, stated that the organization did not provide in writing a justification for withholding a report that considered Israel’s deprivation of Palestinian refugees of the “right of return” to be a “crime against humanity.” The "right of return" is considered one of the most thorny issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as Palestinian refugees demand a return to the lands from which they fled or were forced to leave when the State of Israel was established in 1948.

Published on: 02/13/2026 - 07:29 Last updated: 02/13/2026 - 13:43

In early February, the former director of the Israel and Palestine department at the non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch, Omar Shaker, submitted his resignation with his colleague Melina Ansari after a decision taken by the executive director regarding a report on the “Right of Return,” prior to its publication, which was scheduled for last December.

"Crime against humanity"

Shaker told Agence France-Presse in Amman, “The report concludes that the Israeli authorities’ long-term policy of depriving Palestinian refugees of the right of return, a fundamental right firmly established in law, has caused serious harm and amounts to a crime against humanity.”

He added, "The damage includes intergenerational suffering resulting from the uprooting of Palestinians from their homeland and their separation from their family and broader community ties."

According to the United Nations, crimes against humanity include “murder, extermination, torture, persecution or forced displacement,” and other acts committed even in peacetime “as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.”

"Concerns among senior officials"

Shaker explained that the organization “has not, to date, provided in writing any reason justifying the decision to withdraw the report,” noting that the organization had “referenced at the time the concerns of senior officials.”

He pointed out that the organization said after the media highlighted the issue that the report “was temporarily suspended to allow more time to conduct additional legal and factual analysis.”

Shaker said, "Several matters were submitted in writing, including suggestions to improve the report and reasons for temporarily stopping it, but none of them explains the initial decision to withdraw it nor the continued refusal to publish it on clear principled grounds."

He also indicated that no concerns were raised during the process of reviewing the report, while consultations regarding the decision to withhold it took place “without transparency and without written documentation.”

“Complex issues with significant consequences.”

When Agence France-Presse contacted Human Rights Watch to comment on the case, the organization responded with a statement it issued upon Shaker’s resignation, in which it said that the report “raised complex issues with major consequences.”

She added that she concluded "as part of our review process, that certain aspects of the research and factual basis for our legal conclusions need to be strengthened to meet the high standards adopted by Human Rights Watch."

She stressed, "For this reason, the publication of the report has been suspended until we complete further analysis and research. This process is still ongoing."

Shaker and his fellow researcher Melina Ansari, who made up the entire Human Rights Watch team concerned with Israel and Palestine, resigned after the suspension of publication of the report, which Shaker said there were several factors that contributed to the decision to withhold it.

Fear of “reactions”?

He explained, "The main issue was the concern of the organization and its new leadership that the report would be seen as a call to abolish the Jewish character of the State of Israel."

He added, "Several senior officials mentioned this matter in writing, and the CEO seemed very concerned about the concerns of these officials."

Shaker stressed that "in the end, the matter has nothing to do with the law or facts, but rather it was a decision driven by considerations related to the reactions towards the organization after the report was issued."

Shaker, who has worked with Human Rights Watch for more than a decade, said the decision “raises very serious questions about the organization’s new leadership.”

Right of return

Supporters of the right of return rely on UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of 1948, which states that Palestinian refugees “who wish to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors should be allowed to return as soon as possible.”

The decision also stipulates that compensation be paid to those who do not wish to return and to those whose property was damaged.

The most advanced negotiations aimed at settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict took place in the Egyptian city of Taba in 2001, during which they discussed the possibility of Israel recognizing its partial responsibility for the “Nakba,” allowing a limited number of refugees to return, and providing compensation, in exchange for abandoning the demand for the right of return of all refugees.

Shaker said, "I think that the Palestinians today link ethnic cleansing with the mass forced displacements that we are witnessing in Gaza and the West Bank, and what happened in 1948."

He expressed his hope that "discussions about the right of return will contribute to bringing about a radical transformation, because in the end, there is no future for Israel and Palestine without addressing the suffering of refugees and recognizing their basic rights, including their right to return to their homes."

It is noteworthy that the “Nakba” witnessed the flight or displacement of about 760,000 Palestinians during the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.

The United Nations estimates the number of Palestinian refugees today at about six million people living with their children and grandchildren in the occupied West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

Palestinian refugees still cling to their demand to return to the villages and cities that they or their relatives left, which are today located within the borders of Israel. The Hebrew state strongly opposes this demand, considering that it constitutes a demographic threat to its existence.

France 24/AFP

Keywords related to the article

The content you want to browse is no longer in service or is currently unavailable.